Panthers one of 5 teams in the decline??

[falconidae]

10 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Actually the 50/50 argument is just as falatious as saying 6-1 or 2-6 will repeat themselves. First of all you assume randomization and that isn't accurate. The reason we won the close ones last year and lost them in 2016 wasn't a random event due to chance but tied to the way we played and finished. So how we finish this year won't be due to fate or chance but how we play and finish this year. So your argument like the article holds no water at all. Winning and losing isn't due to chance and teams competing with other most often don't have an equal chance of winning. So the whole 26-24 argument is irrelevant and not predictive simply descriptive of the past which has little bearing on the present or future.

He's basing that on historical facts:

Barnwell again:

"Closely correlated with outplaying or underperforming point differential in football, the vast majority of evidence suggests that teams are unable to win a high percentage of games decided by seven points or fewer year after year. There have been a few exceptions -- teams led by Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck have grossly outstripped expectations -- but generally, teams that win 75 percent or more of their close games in a given season struggle to match that performance the following season."

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/BarnwellNFLPreview160726/predicting-which-nfl-teams-rise-decline-2016-dallas-cowboys-san-diego-chargers

[panthers55]

36 minutes ago, falconidae said:

He's basing that on historical facts:

Barnwell again:

"Closely correlated with outplaying or underperforming point differential in football, the vast majority of evidence suggests that teams are unable to win a high percentage of games decided by seven points or fewer year after year. There have been a few exceptions -- teams led by Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck have grossly outstripped expectations -- but generally, teams that win 75 percent or more of their close games in a given season struggle to match that performance the following season."

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/BarnwellNFLPreview160726/predicting-which-nfl-teams-rise-decline-2016-dallas-cowboys-san-diego-chargers

I know what he was doing and while those historic trends data appears to make sense on face value, they break down when using trends and statistics to predict the success of specific individuals  because it uses collective data which flatters out individual differences to show overall trends. Again not debating the information at all. I am saying it proves nothing in predicting whether Olsen, Newton and KK are in decline or not. It isn't the data in dispute but the conclusions which were drawn from them. This is clickbait.

[falconidae]

44 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

I know what he was doing and while those historic trends data appears to make sense on face value, they break down when using trends and statistics to predict the success of specific individuals  because it uses collective data which flatters out individual differences to show overall trends. Again not debating the information at all. I am saying it proves nothing in predicting whether Olsen, Newton and KK are in decline or not. It isn't the data in dispute but the conclusions which were drawn from them. This is clickbait.

 

The stats on how teams fare year to year in close games has nothing to do with the individuals on the team, just teams in general.

The discussion of the age in key spots, the questions about the Oline and having two new coordinators are entirely separate discussions in the article. 

[panthers55]

50 minutes ago, falconidae said:

 

The stats on how teams fare year to year in close games has nothing to do with the individuals on the team, just teams in general.

The discussion of the age in key spots, the questions about the Oline and having two new coordinators are entirely separate discussions in the article. 

We morphed that discussions pages ago. We already discounted the notion that win or loses stats can be decided based on odds of going 50/50 like a coin toss or game of chance.  Football scores are based on talent, execution and play calling. The idea that a team that went 6-1 in close games is due to falter due to regression to the mean is nonsense. We won or lost based on our own merit not chance or fate. That whole argument is stupid. Much like we can't win because it is an even year.  It used to be a team in the south couldn't win the division 2 years in a row until we did it for 3. The case where stats can be used to.prove anything you want.

[Sub Zero]

17 hours ago, Cracka McNasty said:

You're assessments seem to be based on a lot of optimism/hope with no real evidence other than things will improve just because things are different. That could happen, but the exact opposite could happen as well. 

Kalil has been saying he's finally  healthy for 5 years now. Look it up, there's an article about it every offseason. I don't personally thing he's complete trash like many on here do, but he's not the greatest and he was helped out tremendously by Norwell last season, who by the way, left in FA. 

TD's absence isn't a big deal to me personally, but I see how those not familiar with the Org would see it as a negative. And it is a negative in the leadership department because he is the heart and soul of our defense and that will leave a void for 4 weeks. 

My only issue with Pep is that he's getting old and it's most likely his last year, and he could very well hit the wall this year. Father time is undefeated. Also, by definition of the article, Pep being so old would directly relate to us being in decline.

Williams going down is just bad, no matter who we have to replace him with. Moton could come in and do well, but he's a second year player and wasn't starting over Williams for a reason. I have decent expectations for Moton and his future, but right now, I view him starting over Williams as a step back. 

Cockrell was going to be our #2 corner, everyone knew it. I have low expectations for everyone else on the depth chart personally, except for maybe that Doss guy who seems to be making plays daily. Who knows, maybe Cockrell's absence will allow him to shine, and that'd be super, but again, he's an unknown and Cockrell had a few seasons of actual good tape. 

The coordinators are different, yes, and I personally think the change will be good for the team, but change on any football team is a double edged sword that could be great, or be terrible. I personally lean that it will be positive on both sides of the ball, but the fact is, it's another unknown.

And how DARE you even suggest that "Even year" isn't worth debating. It's the biggest factor going against us as a franchise since John Fox was our HC. 

That and the fact that the Falcons and Saints seem to have only improved in the offseason as well, making our division even harder to win. The NFCS is such a crapshoot, you really can't predict anything one way or the other. 

 

TL:DR There's a bunch of changes, many, many unknowns, and our division is a crapshoot, but being completely objective I can see the argument for why they think we are in decline.

Where did you get the idea Cockrell was going to be the 2nd cb?? All indication show he was in a fight for a backup job.. Some of you need to read the camp reports and pay close attention to the reps.. Jackson and Seymore are the ones who are competing for the other starting cb position.. By every beat writers observations..

 

[arbnranger]

On 7/31/2018 at 7:53 AM, panthers55 said:

The difference is you are going into the season expecting the worse with a negative attitude, either because you have been disappointed by the Panthers before and are afraid to hope for the best to get dissapointed again or like being the negative contrarian.  I on the other am going in optimistically hoping for the best and riding the train until the very last stop. I like being positive and find it is a much better way to live my life despite the constant struggles and daily reminders that if life is a bowl of cherries you still end up at times with the pits. It can be both half empty or half full.  I prefer half full. I invite you to move away from the dark side into the light.

This!

I will give McNast some cred though because normally he seems to be on the positive train. 

[falconidae]

11 hours ago, panthers55 said:

We morphed that discussions pages ago. We already discounted the notion that win or loses stats can be decided based on odds of going 50/50 like a coin toss or game of chance.  Football scores are based on talent, execution and play calling. The idea that a team that went 6-1 in close games is due to falter due to regression to the mean is nonsense. We won or lost based on our own merit not chance or fate. That whole argument is stupid. Much like we can't win because it is an even year.  It used to be a team in the south couldn't win the division 2 years in a row until we did it for 3. The case where stats can be used to.prove anything you want.

You making a claim and it being true are two way different things. Lot more luck involved than you want to admit. Barnwell is  hardly the only one saying it. Teams win roughly half their close games. Teams that win 75% of their close games [except for NE] tend to win fewer close games the next season. The opposite is true, teams that win 25% of their close games tend to win more the next season. Few years ago, Barnwell actually said the Panthers would win more games the next season for that very reason.

It's just a fact, you can argue that it doesn't apply to the Panthers for some reason, but you're going against a lot of numbers that confirm what  Barnwell is saying. 

https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/predicting-2017-nfl-season-record-close-games/

Notice that that is a betting site, what they do is follow trends.

https://philsteele.com/2018/07/26/nfl-close-wins-close-losses/

 

"...This year Carolina and Pittsburgh come in with +6 net close wins [7-1=6], meaning they will have a 75% chance of having a weaker record than '17...."

 

Here's a site that lists close games year to year, with the previous years close game  totals as well. If you look at the extremes- below 25% and above 75%, most teams come closer to 50% the next year. Year after year. 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opp-win-pct-close-games?date=2018-02-05

 

I'm not saying that Carolina is a bad team or that they'll go 4-12, neither is Barnwell, just that the odds are really poor of going 7-1  in close games again this year.

[panthers55]

14 minutes ago, falconidae said:

You making a claim and it being true are two way different things. Lot more luck involved than you want to admit. Barnwell is  hardly the only one saying it. Teams win roughly half their close games. Teams that win 75% of their close games [except for NE] tend to win fewer close games the next season. The opposite is true, teams that win 25% of their close games tend to win more the next season. Few years ago, Barnwell actually said the Panthers would win more games the next season for that very reason.

It's just a fact, you can argue that it doesn't apply to the Panthers for some reason, but you're going against a lot of numbers that confirm what  Barnwell is saying. 

https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/predicting-2017-nfl-season-record-close-games/

Notice that that is a betting site, what they do is follow trends.

https://philsteele.com/2018/07/26/nfl-close-wins-close-losses/

 

"...This year Carolina and Pittsburgh come in with +6 net close wins [7-1=6], meaning they will have a 75% chance of having a weaker record than '17...."

 

Here's a site that lists close games year to year, with the previous years close game  totals as well. If you look at the extremes- below 25% and above 75%, most teams come closer to 50% the next year. Year after year. 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opp-win-pct-close-games?date=2018-02-05

 

I'm not saying that Carolina is a bad team or that they'll go 4-12, neither is Barnwell, just that the odds are really poor of going 7-1  in close games again this year.

What I am going against is whether past trends dictate future behavior. And all the trends don't prove anything. Plus past trends assume that everything is static and stays the same. With all the changes to our team, to assume trends will stay the same is unlikely. Now it is likely we won't win 6 out 7 close games? Very possible but it will be based on our own abilities not statistical tables or historical trends.

[mc52beast]

On 7/31/2018 at 7:54 AM, Cracka McNasty said:

TD suspended for 4 games

Peppers not cleared from PUP

Matt Kalil still starting LT

All-pro RT goes down for the year

FA CB signing to improve our secondary goes down for the year

New Coordinators on both sides of the ball

Even year

 

There's an argument to be made there, even if you don't agree with it. 

Don’t forget about the Curse... 

[Pup McBarky]

I love articles like this...I hope every NFL team buys into us being "on the decline" and hope our players use it for fuel. I wish more people would write similar articles. Nothing like playing with something to prove.