The Cardinals Won't Make the Playoffs Despite Carson's Return & 2nd Best Coach

[TJ]

Seattle actually had worse injury luck than the Cards did last year.

I'm sure your retort will have some junk statistics created by FO, but if you truly believe this, I'm not convinced you watched any NFC West football games last season.

 

[football karma]

the article is a broad rehash of the earlier football outsiders prediction

if you beleive that QB is the single most important position on the field, then losing your starter for 10 of 16 games does matter.

Its also legit to question exactly what kind of player the Cards are getting back in Palmer --- the pessimist points to a career mid-80s rated passer. the optimist points to what looks like steady improvement as more time is spent in the system and the talent around him improves.

If we were told today that Palmer only plays in 6 games again this season, i suspect this Boards over/under prediction for wins would be somewhere around 6.5.

 

[splitsecond]

I think the best point made was earlier. Cards would have probably won 14 games with Carson, plus who knows how many in the playoffs. It's really that simple. We can afford to deviate "down" because 12-13 wins still wins the division.

 

[splitsecond]

the article is a broad rehash of the earlier football outsiders prediction

if you beleive that QB is the single most important position on the field, then losing your starter for 10 of 16 games does matter.

Its also legit to question exactly what kind of player the Cards are getting back in Palmer --- the pessimist points to a career mid-80s rated passer. the optimist points to what looks like steady improvement as more time is spent in the system and the talent around him improves.

If we were told today that Palmer only plays in 6 games again this season, i suspect this Boards over/under prediction for wins would be somewhere around 6.5.

He has what, 5 series on the field in game time since he has been back? The eye test tells me the carer 80s rated passer was left in Oakland with Carson's black and gold socks.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Those were during the 13-2 run you brought up. Let me take a look at the DVOA of the teams he's played during that run.

Not sure what that has to do with my point? He has produced at an extremely high level over his last 15 games. It might be more interesting to compare his 15 game stretch to 15 game stretches of all other QB's as I would assume all QB's face a mix of quality NFL teams over that time period.
And so, when Carson played lower ranked defenses/teams, how did he perform versus other QB's who played lower ranked defenses/teams?
Bottom line for me is that 2013 was the first year for Palmer, along with BA and his staff and for the rest of the offense. And yet, through the adjustment and learning cycle, they were able to produce wins. In 2014, he was 6 & 0 in the games he played. His #'s were:

- Chargers: 65% completion %. 304 yds. 2 TD's
- Skins: 64%, 250 yds. 2 TD's
- Oak: 71%, 253 yds. 2 TD's. 1 INT
- Philly: 48%, 329 yds. 2 TD's
- Dallas: 65%, 249 yds. 3 TD's. 1 INT
- Rams: 69%, 241 yds. 0 TD's. 1 INT

I think those numbers suggest good times ahead for this offense...

 

[Bert]

Well then by that line of logic the Seahawks were "Lucky" to win the division because they faced us in the 2nd half of the season without our starting QB's.

New England was lucky that the Seahawks passed.

Michael Jordan was lucky a bunch of those shots went in instead of out.

Booth was lucky that Lincoln decided to go to the theater...

Semantics. Unless you just like to feed off of negativity. In which case whatever makes you happy!

 

[kerouac9]

Not sure what that has to do with my point? He has produced at an extremely high level over his last 15 games. It might be more interesting to compare his 15 game stretch to 15 game stretches of all other QB's as I would assume all QB's face a mix of quality NFL teams over that time period.
And so, when Carson played lower ranked defenses/teams, how did he perform versus other QB's who played lower ranked defenses/teams?
Bottom line for me is that 2013 was the first year for Palmer, along with BA and his staff and for the rest of the offense. And yet, through the adjustment and learning cycle, they were able to produce wins. In 2014, he was 6 & 0 in the games he played. His #'s were:

- Chargers: 65% completion %. 304 yds. 2 TD's - 25th in Defensive DVOA/25th in Pass Defensive DVOA
- Skins: 64%, 250 yds. 2 TD's - 27th in Defensive DVOA/32nd in Pass Defensive DVOA
- Oak: 71%, 253 yds. 2 TD's. 1 INT - 26th in Defensive DVOA/28th in Pass Defensive DVOA
- Philly: 48%, 329 yds. 2 TD's - 10th in Defensive DVOA/18th in Pass Defensive DVOA
- Dallas: 65%, 249 yds. 3 TD's. 1 INT - 22nd in Defensive DVOA/22nd in Pass Defensive DVOA
- Rams: 69%, 241 yds. 0 TD's. 1 INT - 11th in Defensive DVOA/20th in Pass Defensive DVOA

I think those numbers suggest good times ahead for this offense...

I added the defensive ranks for those teams. I hope that the fact that they averaged 20th in overall defensive efficiency and 26th in pass defensive efficiency will shed some light on my argument that Palmer put up good stats against pretty below-average opponents. Like practically bottom-of-the-league bad.

I'm guessing that the 15-game stretches for other QBs wouldn't look as good because Palmer this time lucked out of facing the toughest opponents that his team had to match up with that season.

I guess the way that I see it is that Palmer's 13-2 run between 2013 and 2014 is a lot like the Cards' 11-2 run between 2011 and 2012. Those kinds of things happen in the NFL, but they may not be particularly meaningful—or repeatable.

 

[Shaggy]

The only thing that can be argued in this whole post is that the Cards could(yes coulda woulda shoulda) have lost most of those 6 games Palmer won if the D didn't hold those teams to very low scores. BUT, isn't that what the D is for, to hold the opposing team to low scores?

It was a team effort. You can't really say Palmer won those 6 games, it was the Cardinals that won those six games. I am a Palmer fanatic but we can't just say he won the games for the Cards.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I saw TJ talking to this guy on Twitter and I tagged in and had a 10 tweet barrage that had him back pedeling like Patrick Peterson.

Seems like he is a junior reporter/analyst putting up content for first time recently as he didn't really have a solid justification. and his counters were basic. Or maybe he just realized he was pulling things out of air (or more accurately Grantland.com) that were not his original ideas that he could personally validate.

Was a fun way to kill 10 mins at work today

 

[Shaggy]

I saw TJ talking to this guy on Twitter and I tagged in and had a 10 tweet barrage that had him back pedeling like Patrick Peterson.

Seems like he is a junior reporter/analyst putting up content for first time recently as he didn't really have a solid justification. and his counters were basic. Or maybe he just realized he was pulling things out of air (or more accurately Grantland.com) that were not his original ideas that he could personally validate.

Was a fun way to kill 10 mins at work today

Post it up here when you get the chance..

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I would but don't know how to imbed tweets

 

[football karma]

Oddly enough, I do tend to agree with the analysis: the Cardinals winning 11 games last year given all that happened was unexpected.

And last year is the jumping off point for the projection into this year. Maybe said another way-- similar production from offense and defense in 2015 as was done in 2014 probably means fewer wins than 11. I don't think that's going out on a limb.

Where I think FOs analysis has weaknesses is assessing the impact of "returning" players. Say what you want about Palmer -- but even his career 87 or so passer rating is better than Stanton's 79 rating from last season. For perspective, the diff between a rating of 87 and 79 is comparing Matthew Stafford (85.7 in 2014) and Geno Smith (77.5).

So I think, net/net-- the Cardinals could be overall a much better team than last years squad (assuming reasonable health, esp at QB) and yet still finish with 10/11 wins -- but be in much better position to make a run in the post season.

 

[DemsMyBoys]

He's a hyphenate, what the hell do you expect. Still trying to work out why daddy doesn't love him.

...writing that down so I can use it in the future and everyone will think I'm witty and clever....

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Can we stop pretending like Football Outsiders is anything other than just another football opinion site? You can bend statistics to prove whatever opinion you are trying to report.

They were way off last year and they will be again:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2014/staff-predictions-2014


Here are some of your "Derp derp we are the smartest in football" classics:

NFC divisions: Seattle, Green Bay, New Orleans, Philadelphia
NFC wild cards: San Francisco, Chicago

So they literally got only 2 NFC playoff teams right out of 6. Yes, the website that everyone is quoting for whom will make the playoffs only got 33% right.

How about some of their writers and what they thought:

NFL Team Most Likely to Beat FOA 2014 Projection

Cian Fahey: Chicago Bears. The Bears could easily win the NFC North and be a contender for the NFC Championship. After establishing their quality on the offensive side, GM Phil Emery spent his offseason rebuilding the defense. The defense still has plenty of soft spots, but the roster is set up to mimic the type of team that the New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl with a few seasons ago.

(finished 5-11)

Mike Kurtz: New York Football Giants. As I said in the NFC East Scramble, we collectively need to stop wringing our hands over the Giants' defense, and realize that the four aces are never coming back. In its place is a less flashy but extremely competent front seven that stops the run and a secondary that has serious upside. Throw in an easy schedule and a lot of regression for Eli Manning, and the Giants should once again be a force to be reckoned with.

(Finished 6-10)

Here this guy admits their own statistics are basically dumb and Detroit will be better but picks the 6-10 Giants anyway

Aaron Schatz: At first, I was going to say Detroit, because there just seems to be way too much talent here to finish 18th in offensive DVOA like we have projected. Then I looked. Last year, do you know where Detroit finished in offensive DVOA? 19th! So instead, I'll go with the New York Giants. Screw the preseason. Eli Manning knows what he's doing and he's not ready to go all Matt Schaub-y yet. Their defense is good and their defensive coordinator is good. (Remind me sometime to start the "Perry Fewell deserves a head coaching shot" bandwagon.) I also think Baltimore will be more of a wild-card contender than we have projected.

NFL Team Most Likely to Fall Short of FOA 2014 Projection

This guy picks the Steelers and the Cardinals. (Combined 22-10)

Tom Gower: I suppose I could say the Steelers, because that's what I did last year and because of my Ravens affection, but I really think the answer has to be the Cardinals. I expected their defense to decline hard last year, and it didn't. With John Abraham providing the pass rush and sans Daryl Washington and Karlos Dansby at inside linebacker, this could be the year defensive regression strikes with a vengeance. Even with San Francisco's defensive losses and Sam Bradford's injury, the schedule isn't easy and I don't trust the offense to score enough to keep them respectable.

And it keeps going. Like 5 of them picked the 9-7 Buffalo Bills to underperform.

This is a group of dudes on the internet just espousing their own bias and using whatever stats they can find to back them up.

I can't take seriously ANY opinion that quotes a website that collectively missed on 67% of their NFC playoff picks as an accurate NFC playoff pick predictor. In fact, we should be joyous that they didn't pick us.

 

[AZ Native]

I remember losing a ton of games by 7 points or less and our record sucked and no one cared how many we lost by, only that we lost. Now we are winning many of those close games. Why? Because we are a better football team. Let's enjoy that.

 

[TJ]

21st century fans love advanced metrics for football, whether or not they have any validity and whether or not the fans actually understand what they're reading, This is why PFF and FO make so much money and why writers like the one I cited get clicks on their articles. I'm sure if you asked Arians and Keim what a player or team's DVOA was, they'd tell you to watch film. I'd rather know what Carson Palmer ate for breakfast before his wins.

 

[Bert]

21st century fans love advanced metrics for football, whether or not they have any validity and whether or not the fans actually understand what they're reading, This is why PFF and FO make so much money and why writers like the one I cited get clicks on their articles. I'm sure if you asked Arians and Keim what a player or team's DVOA was, they'd tell you to watch film. I'd rather know what Carson Palmer ate for breakfast before his wins.

Exactly. And none of those writers have taken into account how much freaking HEART this team has. They fought through so much adversity. It wasn't luck, it was heart. Could this season go south? Sure! Any teams season could go south. But these football pundits are just being pompus know it alls because they are still living in the days when the Cardinals were a joke, they miss their old punching bag. Just like fans who really just love to hate this team and be negative about them constantly, get a rise out of other fans, complain about every draft pick. A guy like that used to sit directly behind me when I had Season Tickets.

I will remain cautiously optimistic, the same approach I have taken to literally EVERY Cardinals season and if negative people want to be negative, that is their right! I just feel sorry for them. Football is supposed to be a fun, fan sport where you forget the world for a few hours and cheer on your team. Sadly some people can only find joy by crapping in the proverbial cheerios.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Can we stop pretending like Football Outsiders is anything other than just another football opinion site? You can bend statistics to prove whatever opinion you are trying to report.

They were way off last year and they will be again:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2014/staff-predictions-2014


Here are some of your "Derp derp we are the smartest in football" classics:



So they literally got only 2 NFC playoff teams right out of 6. Yes, the website that everyone is quoting for whom will make the playoffs only got 33% right.

How about some of their writers and what they thought:



(finished 5-11)



(Finished 6-10)

Here this guy admits their own statistics are basically dumb and Detroit will be better but picks the 6-10 Giants anyway





This guy picks the Steelers and the Cardinals. (Combined 22-10)



And it keeps going. Like 5 of them picked the 9-7 Buffalo Bills to underperform.

This is a group of dudes on the internet just espousing their own bias and using whatever stats they can find to back them up.

I can't take seriously ANY opinion that quotes a website that collectively missed on 67% of their NFC playoff picks as an accurate NFC playoff pick predictor. In fact, we should be joyous that they didn't pick us.

TRUTH!!!!

 

[Mitch]

Making win/loss predictions for any team in August is like trying to predict the stock market. Way too many variables. The thing is---a team's success often depends on staying healthy and catching their opponents at the right time...and, of course, that little thing called lady luck. If the Packers' TE lets the on-side kick go right to the WR for an easy catch, the Packers are in the Super Bowl. It was very lucky for the Seahawks that the TE at that moment decided to abandon his assignment on the play which was to block the closest threat.

 

[blindseyed]

And yet every year these same "experts" tell us the Cowboys are primed and ready to get to the SB ....every year......every.....year.....lol

 

[Chris_Sanders]

21st century fans love advanced metrics for football, whether or not they have any validity and whether or not the fans actually understand what they're reading, This is why PFF and FO make so much money and why writers like the one I cited get clicks on their articles. I'm sure if you asked Arians and Keim what a player or team's DVOA was, they'd tell you to watch film. I'd rather know what Carson Palmer ate for breakfast before his wins.

I have the same sort of derision for DVOA that I have for it's other made up partner QBR

It awards or deducts points based on achieving a set result. This result has nothing to do with what the coach or the formation is trying to do at the time, it just looks at how many yards did a play get.

It then adjusts the results of the made up goal by how the defense responds on average to that made up situation.

Here are the main flaws with it:

#1. It doesn't take into account the coaches philosophy.

As mentioned before, it doesn't take into account what the coach is actually trying to accomplish. An easy example of this is that a coaches philosophy may be heavily concerned with time of possession. They run the ball, even when the yardage isn't as successful as passing the ball because it controls the clock.

#2. It doesn't take into account the relative strengths of those around them and what they are doing. The best way I can illustrate this is from their own website:

Unfortunately, when it comes to individual player ratings, we are still far from the point at which we can determine the value of a player independent from the performance of his teammates. That means that when we say, "In 2014, Marshawn Lynch had a DVOA of 23.1%, what we are really saying is “In 2014, Marshawn Lynch, playing in Darrell Bevell’s offensive system with the Seattle offensive line blocking for him and Russell Wilson selling the keeper when necessary, had a DVOA of 23.1%."

So basically this is why they ignore the effect of having Ryan Lindley as your starting QB on your running game.

There are other flaws in it as well like how they examine defense but at it's core if you are ignoring the impact a coach and teammates have on the gains and losses in football, I just don't give that a lot of credence.


Advanced stats are amazing in baseball. They are far less useful in football.

 

[oaken1]

hey there K9..........

why don't you calculate those teams dvoa....at the TIME the Cardinals faced them?

using end of season stats adds in more variables,..such as late season injuries...or getting TORCHED by C. Palmer

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I remember losing a ton of games by 7 points or less and our record sucked and no one cared how many we lost by, only that we lost. Now we are winning many of those close games. Why? Because we are a better football team. Let's enjoy that.

What the analysts fail to recognize with "close games even out over time" is that in football every season for every team is a new team unto itself. The carryover is far less dramatic then NBA or MLB because there are is WAY more roster churn, assistants are lost at a much higher rate and they bring in 10 rookies every year. The only thread of consistency is if you have a Brady or Manning (which we dont) so I get why people question. But I believe this team will win close games again this year. Why? Better HC, vet QB, and an instilled intelligence that leads to winning results in clsoe games? I mean look at how we adjust in 2nd half of regular season? We have to be one of the top teams in that category.

So basically yeah i dont care what happened over a 5 year timeline in terms of winning close games. That can carry over with the right parts. See the Colts record in close games since Luck was drafted - the common cited anamoly for this whole win probability metric that Barnwell touts. Thats not a coincidence and the 7 pts or less statistic is looking at a group of teams overall (which again with the turnover in the NFL doesnt mean squat because every season a team is differen)and doesnt lend it self to isolation and outliers.

Which the Cardinals are. Hopefully

 

[kerouac9]

I have the same sort of derision for DVOA that I have for it's other made up partner QBR

It awards or deducts points based on achieving a set result. This result has nothing to do with what the coach or the formation is trying to do at the time, it just looks at how many yards did a play get.

It then adjusts the results of the made up goal by how the defense responds on average to that made up situation.

You don't like them whole-cloth? How do you gather data to support an opinion? I think that both DVOA and QBR have their strengths and weaknesses — neither are a "true" gauge of anything — but they both add to a tapestry of how to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a team and provide some deeper insight.

Aren't all stats "made up" until they're generally accepted? Why look at Passer Rating, YPA, YPC, or any other stat? None of those take the coach's philosophy into account.

Here are the main flaws with it:

#1. It doesn't take into account the coaches philosophy.

As mentioned before, it doesn't take into account what the coach is actually trying to accomplish. An easy example of this is that a coaches philosophy may be heavily concerned with time of possession. They run the ball, even when the yardage isn't as successful as passing the ball because it controls the clock.

I think the idea is that those moments come out in the wash. Football generally has a sample-size problem where you're only looking at 16 games per season, 600 or so passing plays, 400 or so running games per season. The assumption is that the running out the clock runs are few enough (maybe 6 in 10 games at the maximum?), and that you can't gain 4 yards on first down even in those situations still tells you something.

Advanced stats are amazing in baseball. They are far less useful in football.

I think we agree on this, but if you're just like "Derp derp Carson Palmer wins derp derp Jonathan Cooper game had 125 rushing YPG derp derp" then you have no guideline to use to get your team better or improve for the next season.

I dismiss or discount a lot of PFF's stats because they're not "stats", they're averages of game charter's opinions. Football Outsiders will be the first to tell you that their stats aren't perfect, they're frequently trying to tweak their algorithms, and that they go against their stats all the time. They call Russell Wilson "the asterisk" because his college metrics put him off the charts as a pro prospect, but he's managed to perform pretty well at the team level.

hey there K9..........

why don't you calculate those teams dvoa....at the TIME the Cardinals faced them?

using end of season stats adds in more variables,..such as late season injuries...or getting TORCHED by C. Palmer

They don't calculate DVOA early in the season because of the sample-size problem. It doesn't do any good to look at one or two games and start drawing conclusions — which cuts both ways with Palmer, because there's only six solid-but-not-great starts to judge him on.

I'm not sure how 250 yards and 2 TDs against Washington is "TORCHING" them. That's their average surrender during the season.

 

[kerouac9]

What the analysts fail to recognize with "close games even out over time" is that in football every season for every team is a new team unto itself. The carryover is far less dramatic then NBA or MLB because there are is WAY more roster churn, assistants are lost at a much higher rate and they bring in 10 rookies every year. The only thread of consistency is if you have a Brady or Manning (which we dont) so I get why people question. But I believe this team will win close games again this year. Why? Better HC, vet QB, and an instilled intelligence that leads to winning results in clsoe games? I mean look at how we adjust in 2nd half of regular season? We have to be one of the top teams in that category.

So basically yeah i dont care what happened over a 5 year timeline in terms of winning close games. That can carry over with the right parts. See the Colts record in close games since Luck was drafted - the common cited anamoly for this whole win probability metric that Barnwell touts. Thats not a coincidence and the 7 pts or less statistic is looking at a group of teams overall (which again with the turnover in the NFL doesnt mean squat because every season a team is differen)and doesnt lend it self to isolation and outliers.

Which the Cardinals are. Hopefully

You both make the argument for regression to the mean and then say that you don't believe it because you expect carry-over from one season to the next. So weird.