NFL teams with indoor practice facilities averaged 4 more wins in 2010

[ouvan59]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

[MattFancy]

You can make stats say anything you want.

For example: The Orioles should change their hats because the last time a team that won the WS didn't have a letter on their hat was the Toronto Blue Jays in 1993. So that implies that if the Orioles put just a letter on their main hat, they will win a WS.

Or, the Orioles should have interlocking letters on their hats because teams that have that (Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants) have combined to win 49 WS. So if the Orioles use interlocking letters, they should win multiple WS.

Sure an indoor facility would help, but its not the sole reason those teams are winning.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

Only if it agrees to build for the vet. min. + incentives ......

Hail.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and one year of data is a poor sample to assess the effects of having an indoor practice facility, given the impact of each season's rosters, injuries, matchups, etc. that aren't being controlled in the design or analysis.

It would be a far better analysis to look at the before and after effects for each team over time.

Maybe you haven't read the full thread / posts. Your comment implies that the only demonstration was 2010 regular season. That just happened to be dramatic.

I also demonstrated by Super Bowl winners (last 8), Super Bowl appearances (13 of last 14), and provided two case studies with the Packers and Jets, showing their performance after they built their facilities in 1994 and 2008, respectively.

Any one of these data points might be a fluke, but it's highly unlikely to be a fluke, taken together. Almost every time I looked for a trend, I found it. Someone pointed out that the Giants did not get better when they built their facility, but they were already good, and were using a bubble prior to 2009. I'm not going to argue that a facility will automatically make a very good team (Super Bowl winner) better. Nor that by itself it makes a bad team good. Rather that it's a required foundation for sustained success in today's NFL, particularly in December and January.

[SwampEm]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

They would end up with a aging facility if they followed status quo.

[Popeman38]

and provided two case studies with the Packers and Jets, showing their performance after they built their facilities in 1994 and 2008, respectively.

I refuted the Jets last page.

I will now refute the packers and your 1994 start:

BRETT FAVRE

He joined the Packers in 1992. He was a starter by week 4 and made every start for them through the end of the 2007 season.

See also Montana, Joe and the 49ers and Brady, Tom and the Pats and Marino, Dan and the Dolphins and Roethlisberger, Ben and the Steelers and Manning, Peyton and the Colts....

Wanna win in the NFL? Draft/sign a FRANCHISE QB. That will result in way more wins than a god damned indoor practice facility.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I refuted the Jets last page.

I will now refute the packers and your 1994 start:

BRETT FAVRE

I believed that, too, right up until Brett Favre won his second Super Bowl in January.

People prefer heroes. The fact that a much improved practice facility might have a great deal to do do with the success of the Packers (in tandem with Lambeau Field and two great QBs) is too banal to be easily accepted.

It's all about Favre. Or Rodgers. Or coach Ryan, Or Brady. Or Manning. Or Roethlisberger. Or Brees.

Yes, it's mostly about them. Their being great put them over other great QBs in the Super Bowl. Getting there required the whole team and required a lot of things to go right on critical weeks. This is where practice comes in.

"We're talkin' about practice. Not a game, not a game. Practice."

Yes, I'm talking about practice.

[MattFancy]

Last 8 Super Bowl Winners:

2010--Packers (Rodgers)
2009--Saints (Brees)
2008--Steelers (Roethlisberger)
2007--Giants (Manning)
2006--Colts (Manning)
2005--Steelers (Roethlisberger)
2004--Patriots (Brady)
2003--Patriots (Brady)

Something tells me those QBs may have more to do with those teams winning the SBs than having an indoor practice field.

[ouvan59]

You can make stats say anything you want..

That's ASF's specialty.

[tshile]

i think this study really only shows one thing

northern teams have been the more successful teams in the last 20 years. they have indoor facilities because of weather.

[ouvan59]

They would end up with a aging facility if they followed status quo.

More likely it would be Kettler since that wouldn't fit our system.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

i think this study really only shows one thing

northern teams have been the more successful teams in the last 20 years. they have indoor facilities because of weather.

I submit that the "northern" association is a consequential correlation, and the actual correlation (with causation) is the practice facilities used primarily and first by northern teams.

[tshile]

oh, so you don't think it has anything to do with having bright coaches/gm's who create rosters with depth and talent? and that maybe their smarts lead them to the decisions to get indoor facilities, alongside their roster moves?

maybe you're right. when i think of the packers, steelers, patriots, and giants i don't think savy roster moves and smart coaches; i think indoor practice facilities.

[Popeman38]

I believed that, too, right up until Brett Favre won his second Super Bowl in January.

People prefer heroes. The fact that a much improved practice facility might have a great deal to do do with the success of the Packers (in tandem with Lambeau Field and two great QBs) is too banal to be easily accepted.

It's all about Favre. Or Rodgers. Or coach Ryan, Or Brady. Or Manning. Or Roethlisberger. Or Brees.

Yes, it's mostly about them. Their being great put them over other great QBs in the Super Bowl. Getting there required the whole team and required a lot of things to go right on critical weeks. This is where practice comes in.

Brett Favre started every game from week 4 of 1992 through the NFCCG in 2007. The Packers were celler dwellers until Favre got there. He made them great. Franchise QBs have a habit of doing that. He went to the Jets, and sucked. He went to the Vikings, and guess where he led them? The NFCCG. NO was nothing until Brees rolled around. The Colts were nothing before Manning. Rex Ryan has had a huge impact on the Jets. You can't gloss over all of these facts and state that yeah, it ain't really the players its the indoor practice facility. If an owner knew indoor facility=SB wins/mass revenue increase, what owner wouldn't invest $10M on a practice facility? NONE. They would all build world class facilities. Then you would start a thread about statistics stating that without a franchise QB a team has zero chance of winning.

The Redskins won't play deep into the playoffs until they have a first-class training facility with a full-service practice field under a fixed structure. The bubble will help, certainly. But, it's literally a low ceiling in today's NFL. The Redskins simply lack the facilities investment required for success in the NFL. Until Dan Snyder spends what is required, expect the losing and short seasons to continue.

This is what you said in your OP. This is the crux of your argument. The Skins can't win until that cheap bastard starts investing in his team. Nothing besides a 1st class indoor facility will result in winning. You literally said this. Your words.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

There's actually been a lot of good, reasoned post's as to why we need an indoor facility in this thread. Something I'm far from opposed to. (Even if I would still prefer my guys to practice in the same elements their liable to face game day in the main.).

But regardless, it's real hard to take ANY thread ASF starts without thinking the main crux behind it is his on going vendetta against the owner. (And sorry if you think that's a strong word to use man, but your previous in most every thread your involved in suggests that's exactly what it is.).

REAL hard indeed, however good intentioned a particular thread/ thought may be.

Hail.