So, my gut reaction was right - the Eagles really do seem to be the second-best team in the conference, if not the league, and the Bears should still scare the living daylights out of me. Good to know.

So, the top 3 are pretty much inline, the bottom 12 are pretty much inline - and everybody between 4 and 20 is a big ol' jumbled mess. Okay, got it.

I think I'm more surprised by Detroit being ranked above SF more than anything else.

The Bears are just... scary.

The only thing that gives me hope as a Philly fan versus the Bears is that close win over Minnesota. Philly's still got far, far less variance than any team in the league - they've never not looked like one of the best teams in the league for any significant amount of time.

Well, that, and the fact that Philly won't play Chicago until the playoffs (thank God!). And only time will tell how long it takes defensive coordinators to figure out Grossman.

Yikes..The Bears' variance jumped 6% from last week. I'm curious as to what their variance is when excluding the Minn game? I can't imagine it being very high without that game included.

I think it's interesting that on a play-by-play level DVOA is not altogether impressed by the Broncos -- every team they've played is higher ranked.

How much of this is due to the schedule adjustments only being at 50% strength?

How much of this is hidden indicators and flaws in the team that we don't know about? (Read: beyond "Jake Plummer is unpredictable")

Anyway, great job! Are the Bears the best 5-0 team in DVOA's history?

Denver's defense is clearly ranked too low because they are clearly the best defense in the NFL, having allowed 16 points in the past three games, and 1 touchdown so far this season. Common sense is way better than this. w00t! go bronx! superbowl '07!!!!

Doesn't excluding a game kind of defeat the point of variance?

Ugh, after a couple of weeks moonlighting as a mediocre offense, the Raven's O is right back to where everyone expects them to be. I'm hoping that with a little more Musa Smith and Mike Anderson, along with more familiarity of the offensive system for McNair can get them to at mediocre once again.
Its a very interesting picture so far in the AFC, a bunch of quality teams all with noticeable flaws. I don't see any team asserting their dominance over the conference any time soon.

When I saw the rankings earlier in the season I thought, "If I understand this system, and I probably don't, the Vikings will continue to win or lose close games and bounce around #16 or #17 regardless of their record." So far, that's looking about right.

Well, yeah. But suppose for example the absoulutely totally unlikely and impossible event that the Bears keep on winning by 20 points for every game(I'll eat my cap if that happens; luckilly I dont own any caps). If so, that one game could just be considered a statistical anomaly that drags the numbers down, (such as using the average salary of 100 people in a company, with 99 people making between 10K and 50K and the CEO making 10,000,000 dollars.) Should we start including median DVOA numbers to see what a team does on a game-by-game basis? Because, KC got that HUGE jump by winning a single game, but if one were to look at their median game results, one could possibly see that KC isn't quite as good as their numbers would suggest. (No offense to KC at all. Good job for surviving one freak accident and one close-to-horribly freak accident.)

Nice to see that Baltimore and San Diego's defense are falling back to reality now that they can't play the Raiders every week. Not that they won't end up good - they will, most likely - but they won't end up far and away the best defense in the league, like they were earlier.

Ow.

Just for Comparison, I went to past years to see what the best team in the league had at seasons end. I know the season is still early and a lot of the outliers will trend more towards average, but the closest team in DVOA history to this years Bears is the 1999 Rams - and the Bears are ranked 20% higher then them. Most years, the Bears are ranked per just raw DVOA percentage as nearly twice as good as most of the past #1 teams in the league.

There are 3 teams this year that rank higher than most of the previous highs. The 1999 Rams were 45.8% and currently hold the record as "best team in DVOA" but Philly and SD rank higher than every other #1 DVOA team as well.

I'm glad Indy's rated where they are. They're lucky to be 5-0, they could VERY easily be a 2-3 team right now. and the fact that they have a harder future schedule than J-ville might allow Jax to take the division.

Also, talked about it last night, but the Jets with their schedule have a really good chance of snubbing some better team for a Wild Card spot.

RE #10. Yeah, the Vikings are like the mini-Bears from last season. Their offense isn't quite as horrible and their defense isn't quite as dominant as the Bears from last season. But look at how mediocre CHI really was last year. They struggled to put away teams in the bottom half as well as "played up to their competition" against teams in the top half. I don't think numbers can really predict how a team like that will perform from one week to the next, except to predict that there's no way to accurately predict that team.

Well, week 6 will be a nice test for DAVE. The Seahawks at Rams will pit one team with a +15 [DVOA-DAVE Rank] against a -10 [DVOA-DAVE Rank].

Now, if it comes to pass that the Rams somehow beat the Seahawks and DAVE still ranks the Seahawks higher, I wonder what we should all think about DAVE?

but the closest team in DVOA history to this years Bears is the 1999 Rams

Better to look at Week 6 ratings from previous years. The top team is always around ~50% or so, and by the end, was more like ~30%. That puts the Bears about as good as the 1999 Rams. Great.

Sweet! An excuse for my Packers. According to these stats the Packers have had the hardest schedule in the NFL so far.

I am having difficulty typing this as tears of joy run down my face. I hope my keyboard is waterproof.

Bears!

Bears = Number one on the threatdown. Again.

Maybe this has been answered before, and I guess it's implied by #16, but if a team's DVOA is higher than its DAVE, does that mean it's outperforming expectations (it's actual value is greater than it's preseason projections, which will eventually go away)? Or is that simplifying it too much?

Pat, besides the raw numbers, I'd also be worried about matchups with the Bears. Subjectively, I'd say that the Eagles' defense should do well, but their pass-happy offense plays right into the strength of the Chicago defense. These guys are ridiculously, frighteningly fast; the best strategy against them seems to be to pound them with the running game - not because it's particularly effective, but because it keeps your QB from getting drilled on every down.

Looking at their Div I-AA schedule for the rest of the year, @NE might be the only thing standing between the Bears and 16-0 (unless you believe Miami really does have some mystical power against undefeated teams... Somehow, I just don't think Joey Harrington can pull a Marino like in '85).

Am I mssing something?

I think the schedule rankings might be wrong.

Den: (16.2+25.2+11.9+24.6)/4 = 19.5 (not 15.6)

Det:(-.8+64.7-20.6+16.2+4.4)/5 = 12.8 (not 16.0)

If you divide the Denver total by 5 and the Detroit total by 4 you get the chart totals.

I was curious how Denver only had the third hardest schedule when the teams they played are ranked 5,6,8 & 10. So unless I am wrong (which is always a possibility) I think the numbers are messed up.

22 - I think @STL could be quite tough as well. They are a very good team at home.

Jacksonville's easy remaining schedule is a bit of an illusion. They have four games left against top ten DVOA teams (PHI, KC, NYG, NE) and four games against bottom three DVOA teams (HOU, TEN 2x each). It's mostly just the complete suckiness of the bottom feeders in the AFC South, and the fact that Jax hasn't played them yet that makes the schedule look so easy. The team that I feel most sorry for is Tampa Bay. 0-4 and the hardest remaining schedule...ouch.

How much are the '06 Broncos like the '05 Bears? Smothering defense, barely legal offense. Any theories *why* the Denver offense is so so bad this year? Are the rumors about defenses figuring out how to nullify the bootleg true?

26

Plummer just looks inaccurate. The playcalling is similiar, the routes are similiar. Players are open. He's just missing them.

RE #26 You've helped make my point there. As I stated earlier, very large or very small numbers drag will always drag down the average. For example, you're working at a job where you make 35K per year and another company is trying to sway you to change jobs. They tell you that your Average employee makes only 131500 dollars and that their Average employee makes over 1 million dollars! Each company has 10 employees. What they're NOT telling is that your CEO makes only 1 million dollars while their CEO makes 10 million dollars, and that when eliminating both CEOs we find that the median salary in your company is 35 thousand dollars per year and the median salary in their company is only 30 thousand dollars per year. Thus, if you were to change jobs you would expect to make 5 thousand dollars less per year at the other company. So, to accurately predict wins, it would be unwise simply to go with the average strength of schedule ahead, and to judge the wins on a case-by-case basis, (which I've seen some people here do when projecting wins on the last week's DVOA article).

So, based solely on less than 1/3 of the schedule, I'm going to subjectively eliminate teams from winning the superbowl based on the numbers and what I subjectively believe a team requires to win the Superbowl. My criteria is pretty simple. To win the superbowl, a team needs to rank in the top 10 in both offense and defense, and might not want to suck horribly on special teams. So as of right now, everybody except for the Bears, Eagles, and Chargers are eliminated from winning the Superbowl, and the Chargers are eliminated because of Martyball. SO the Superbowl will be PHI vs. Chicago. Oh wait...they're in the same conference....(I'm only basing these numbers on the non DAVE Dvoa, btw.)

I'm not quite as statistically savvy as many of you -- can somebody please explain to me how the Pats' seemingly struggling passing game can be ranked #4?

I think we've overlooked something, here... Who would win - Urlacher or Hurricane Ditka?

RE #23. They prorate the numbers so that every team plays the same number of potential games. Take your 78 and divide that by 5 and you'll get 15.6 exactly. I can't say what the Detroit numbers mean, because I'm getting the same results as you.

Re #5 The whole game? Heck, just exclude the Winfield INT return (which Grossman says he was trying to throw away) and re-analyze. 19-9 (not that that would necessarily be the score)is much different than 19-16. Besides, I think their main trouble in that game (inside pass blocking, especially on the blitz) has been shored up pretty well. Heck, it was shored up at halftime of that game. The Bears aren't likely to average 25-point margins of victory, but it's surely not going to be 3 either. Credit the Vikes, but as far as the Bears are concerned that was the outlier of their performances so far. I wouldn't lend as much credence to it as some people seem to want to do.

Also, the Bears have given up 3 TDs this year, but really two are on the offense, not the D. And while the defense has set up a number of short fields for the offense, they still haven't actually scored themselves. Overall, though, I think in terms of point differential they're about where they should be because Grossman's been lucky on some throws so far (see my post in the Quick Reads thread). I don't see him continuing to throw high off receivers hands or off his back foot into three defenders or having Davis out jump four guys on a tipped ball and be successful. The Bears have been fumble lucky, too. While still very good, their underlying performance hasn't been quite as otherworldly as most people seem to think.

This is not to say I'm not ecstatic about the season so far, but if you listen to all the coaches and players when they say they still can play better, you should realize they're not just blowing smoke.

but their pass-happy offense plays right into the strength of the Chicago defense.

I don't know. The Bears haven't really faced a well-rounded pass offense yet, so it's tough to say if they've got a weakness in pass defense or not. That is, a team with a serious pass catching threat short (RB/TE), middle (TE/WR), and long (WR). And Philly is an obscenely balanced pass offense.

Yes, they've faced the Seahawks, but the Seahawks didn't have an RB who could catch or a TE worth talking about. Ditto with Buffalo, Detroit, or Green Bay. Minnesota is the most well balanced team they've faced, and they don't have a serious threat at TE, either.

They do face a balanced offense in the Giants in a few weeks - but unless Grossman reverts horribly, they'll shred the Giants secondary into tatters.

So I don't know whether to view the Steelers as the best crappy team in the league (highest DVOA among teams with less than 2 wins) or as only the worst mediocre team in the league (a 9 point DVOA dropoff from them to Buffalo).

Re 2: I believe there are a couple of reasons for that, and any help on this would be appreciated.

One is that the ways in which Detroit has hurt themselves are not always reflected in DVOA. For example, if I recall correctly, the length of an interception return is pretty much random, so a team that tends to throw interceptions that are returned for touchdowns is hurt more on the scoreboard than in DVOA.

The other is that with the exception of being throttled by the #1 DVOA team, the Lions have been in the games they've played pretty much the whole way. They've just Millened those games.

Mil-len, v. tr.
1. To affect negatively through inadequate performance, specifically through inexperience and/or incompetence: Looks like they're going to Millen their chances.
2. To lose a football game as described in 1.

cf. Ford

Ford, v. tr.
1. To allow something of value to depreciate through decades of incompetence while insisting that one's best effort is being put forth: That used to be a nice house, but he's really Forded it, so I don't see why anyone would buy it now.

#36: I think it's mostly Berrian (and the threat of Berrian). He's really turned on this year, and his progression has helped their offence far more than any progression Rex has made (still bouncing passes off linemen's heads).

The amusing thing is that everyone's still so scared of Muhammad. He's pretty good underneath, but he's nowhere near the top threat. And he drops a lot, anyway.

Re 36: Actually, both Shawn Bryson and Dan Campbell have posted pretty good numbers so far, although there's no way to tell if that's just a fluke of sample size or if it's an indication that the wrong people are getting the ball ... they're both first in receiving DVOA among non-qualifiers so far this season.

RE #36 From what I've seen from the Bears in the past two seasons, their biggest weakness is blown coverages 40 yards down the field, usually caused by miscommunication between the Safeties and CB's. Take the SEA game, for example. SEA had an EASY TD pass down the right sidelines in the third quarter where no Bear was within five yards of the WR and the ball was right on his hands. That wouldn't have changed the result, but it did expose the Bears' weakness. Basically, the Bears are good for one or two blown coverages deep down the field a game, from what I've seen, (and I've watched about 240 of the 300 minutes the Bears have played this year.)

St. Louis and New Orleans have continued to play well after surprising early wins — but check out the colossal gap between the Rams’ DVOA and their non-adjusted VOA.

The Pats have a similarly large difference: 11.9% DVOA, 20.7% Non-adj. VOA. And just when I was about to get excited about them outperforming their DAVE. Unw00t.

Re #36 Agreed. I still don't trust Tillman and if you get a line that can stall the pass rush and have an accurate QB, I fear they could exploit the secondary. I don't think Indy's at all a better team, but facing Manning scares me. He has weapons and the ability to do a lot of damage if the line gives him any time at all. I fear the Foxboro game because Belicheck has had a lot of success patching together no name lines and of course if Brady has time, he eventually finds someone. When the line got all over Delhomme last year, the Bears won impressively, but come the second time around, they found away to slow down the rush (and Tillman was inexplicably stupid) and that's when they got burned. No opponent so far has had that combo and so our passing D looks fantastic, but I'm certain that's far more the lines doing than the secondary's. If Arizona had any kind of line (and Fitzgerald wasn't out), I might be nervous about Leinart having time to find two very good receivers. As it is, I just fear he'll be injured. This is also why I agree the Eagles could be dangerous, not only do they have the line, the receivers and the QB, they have the D. I still think the Bears would prevail, but it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

so is aaron donning the fake moustache and ditka sweater now? "my prediction: Even with Ditka with one arm tied behind his back... Bears 182 Lions -31."

"Nice to see that Baltimore and San Diego’s defense are falling back to reality now that they can’t play the Raiders every week"

Ummm, last week if my memory serves correct the Ravens defense was at -41% DVOA, this week they are at -38% DVOA. I'm not sure losing three percentage points counts as coming back to reality.

#40: True, but Detroit doesn't use Campbell, so it doesn't really matter if he's on the team. The only pass that was thrown his way in the Chicago game was caught for 23 yards. Maybe they should've gone there more often.

Detroit's much more of a "WR+RB" passing game, which is what Martz has always done. I think in that sort of a game, the WRs and RBs have to be very good passing threats, and Detroit's aren't.

#39, but Muhammad has currently caught 65% of passes thrown to him, vs. 53% for Berrian.

43

Well, it helps that the Bears gameplan was, and they pretty much said this, "We'll let Steve Smith get his yards and shut down the rest of the offense and force him to beat us". and then of course he did.

That's like saying "We'll shut down Dominic Rhodes and force Peyton Manning to beat us".

and 47

Berrian usually goes deep, and Grossman rarely throws a ball away. If he has to throw a ball away, he tends to just heave it far on his deep route and hope his WR can make a play. I wouldn't look too deeply into his catch %.

#45:
Week 3: -82%
Week 4: -60%
Week 5: -41%
Week 6: -38%

I'm expecting Baltimore to come out higher than San Diego, but Baltimore has been crashing back to reality.

Philly's low variance is a good sign for Eagles fans. They havn't had the hardest schedule yet, but outside 1 quarter against NYG, they'd be doing exactly what they should be doing - demolishing easy teams, and outplaying talented divison rivals. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the season.

RE: Denver's offense
Is it really all Plummer's fault? I havn't really seen any Denver game's this year, I missed parts of last night's game . I've always been a Plummer fan, but even if you hate the guy, you could never have seen it coming that he would play this bad.

RE #47 Which comes to the great debate. Is 12% less catch percentage worth the +9 yards per reception? In my subjective viewpoint, I'll take the extra nine yards per catch and the lower catch percentage on most occasions, unless it's 3rd and 8 and I need a first down or I lose the game. I would also say that Berrian's lower catch percentage is because of the fact that Grossman is passing to him deep far more often than to Moose, and I think everyone can agree that shorter passes usually have a higher completion percentage than deeper passes in general.

Given that peanut tillman's usual coverage is underneath and the safety's job is over the top, and chris harris is no longer the deep safety (not to mention mike brown being hurt last year in the playoffs), I think their deep coverage is going to be better.

46: That's what I mean, Pat. Bryson's been fairly good out of the backfield for a while, but he seems to be mostly a blocking back now, while Jones is getting a huge number of passes thrown his way (some of which work pretty well; many of which do not).

I don't know why they bothered to sign Campbell if they weren't going to look to him more often. I thought they made an effort to find guys like Pollard (was) and Campbell so they could get more production out of the TE spot, but as you've pointed out, Kitna's not been looking that direction.

Guess we'll have another chance to see how the Bears decide to hold them in check. I'd expect Chicago to use a 3-3-3 against them. No sense in exposing guys to injury unnecessarily.

Gosh, I wish the Vikings had Seattle at home, and the Patriots on the road, over their next two games, because I get the feeling that Seattle is a lot more beatable out of their stadium than the Patriots are out of Kraft's sandbox.

49 & 52, agreed...I was simply noting that saying M.M. drops a lot isn't really indicated in his stats this year. For most of his career he has been in the 50's, so we might reasonably expect him to drop more as the season goes on.

Yawn..So, to an FO who may be reading this, when can we expect to have Off. and Def. lines updated, and drive stats as well?

Quick note: the Packers are 1-4, not 1-3.

Denver's also played some pretty good defenses so far. Hopefully their offense will get a little well against Oakland.

I've never really understood how people use the DVOA rankings here to predict wins, anyway - are they just doing it by seeing if one team is ranked ahead of another in the DVOA rankings?

So, considering that Tampa has an 0-4 record and the hardest remaining schedule, what are they odds they run the table and become the Bucs of old?

I argued against this last week, but I'm starting to come around. It is really weird that DVOA thinks that NE has an elite offense and a slightly below average defense. Their last win was almost entirely due to defense, and defense-produced turnovers. Their run offense has looked good 3 times and poor twice, their pass offense has looked only average to poor every time, and their defense has looked slightly below average to well above average. What is skewing the DVOA?

#60. I'd imagine the single game against the Bears accounts for a great deal in that hardest remaining schedule for TB. I will say this, though. It's always easier to lose than it is to win, so it's more likely for a team to go winless than undefeated.

I retract my statement before. Unless it turns out that NO really is a pretender, or that Sea has locked up its standing before week 17, they very well could go winless.

Philly at this point really is the only credible threat to Chicago in Soldier Field come January, and even then it isn't a great threat, but at least it isn't a forgone conclusion. I don't follow the AFC as closely, but maybe the the guy who masterminded the downfall of the 2000 Rams could do something, but, then again, last year's divisional game against the Panthers aside, Lovie Smith is not Mike Martz. In any case, it is useful to remember how close the Titans came to beating the '99 Rams.

It seems to me that to beat the Bears in the playoffs, a team will have to have a very physical performance by the offensive line, even if it doesn't provide obvious results, and a quarterback who handles pressure exceedingly well, and a defense that pressures Grossman into bad throws. The list of teams that fit that description isn't very long.

When was the last time a team dominated (I know it's real early) its team like the Bears? They score the most points per game and allow the least points. That's domination on both sides of the ball. I know the 99 rams were pretty dominant (Kurt Warner was the best QB, Faulk was very good on both rushing and receiving with +1000 yards in both categories, and Kevin Carter leading the NFL in sacks).

When do you think the Bears will lose?

They played a passing heavy team in Seahawks, AND WON. They played a run heavy team in Buffalo, with McGahee coming into the game with the most rushing yards, AND WON.

I think thier main challenge isn't New England, which I think they can win on the road. They should have a fight in New York against the Giants. They have a strong running game in Tiki Barber and a dynamic passing game in Eli and Plaxico/Toomer. That is the game I'm circling as a game in which will test the Chicago's ability to not only win with attacks in passing but also in running. Winning on the road is another spot I think the Bears should work on before the playoffs.

Tillman played the Panthers playoff game with an injured left shoulder, if the Bears had the depth (Manning Jr) then that they have now, Tillman wouldn't have played. If you look at his poor play during the game it is a lot easier to understand if you realise that he was effectively playing with one arm - ie. Smith being able to push him over on the first TD, Smith being able to wrestle the ball off him near the endzone. The remainder of Smith's demolition of the Bears secondary I would put down to single covering him with Chris Thompson (yes thats 'The Mighty Chris Thompson') without deep help and Mike Brown getting hurt on some of the worst turf I have ever seen.

Aaron, are the top teams' DVOA above their DAVE and the bottome teams' DVOA below their DAVE by design?

Re: 64

Bro u read my mind about the 99 Rams

Yeah, the Giants could definitely ruin their bid for 16-0; it really takes only one less than maximum intensity performance on defense to produce a loss, and if the Giants get their pass rush untracked, they could keep the Bears from scoring a lot. The Bears have a nice offensive line, but we're not talking about the '72 Dolphins in that regard.

It might require an offensive line performance like that of the only undefeated team to beat the Bears in the playoffs, however.

Hey tunesmith, why does Arizona have a beatpath over San Fran? Shouldn't the SF>STL, STL>ARI, ARI>SF take care of that?

Without 100% opponent adjustments, I'd take the DVOA rating of any team that played Chicago with a grain of salt. Buffalo was probably too high last week, but following the loss to Chicago they plummeted from 12 to 21 in current DVOA. And their DVOA is being adjusted upwards, so it isn't just that they are getting less credit for playing well against bad teams.

Also, it appears that Washington's offense has got it together at the same time the defense has collapsed.

A stats question: is Estimated Wins useful for predicting who will win games based on the data as the season is ongoing? I know that pythagorean wins is very poor at predicting winners because it is not opponent-adjusted and relies on entirely retrospective information, but does Expected Wins not have that problem because it is opponent-adjusted and is based on DVOA, a predictive stat?

Keep in mind the Bears only decent road opponent was the Vikings, and the Bears needed a late drive to win that game. I could see @NYG, @NYJ, @NWE, and @STL to all be tough matches based on the earlier Minnesota game.

Also the Bears play the Giants and Jets back to back, whatever that means.

#65 - As much as I'd love it if the Giants were to knock off the Bears, I just don't see it happening. The Giants offense should put up a good fight against the Bears D, but unless Grossman regresses in a major way, I just don't see the Giants secondary holding up (even if the pass rush improves).

Plus, I don't want to jinx them.

It is wise to pay more attention to special teams rankings as well. I 'd have a lot more confidence in the Vikings' ability to contend for a playoff spot if they didn't surrender so much field position on punts and kicks.

Well, let's just give the Super Bowl to the Bears. It would appear they have no weaknesses and are unlikely to be beaten all season.

Seriously, it's way too early for this. I have some degree of faith in the Bears D but I am not convinced the success of the Bears O will continue. Their ridiculously easy schedule will make it difficult to judge, but I am unconvinced on Grossman.

That being said, I really don't think the blueprint for beating them is Carolina, which was basically a fluke game caused by Lovie Smith's refusal to put 10 men on Steve Smith when needed. If anything I would say it is the Steelers win from 05 that is a better guide, where their big offensive line manhandled the Bears to the tune of almost 200 yards rushing.

Cot Damn! Bears rank #2 in Defense, #3 in Offense and #1 Special Teams...

What are some good hotels in Miami?

George, I wouldn't bet on it either, of course. If the Bears lose, it'll likely come on the road when their defense has a little less than full intensity, and when Grossman gets some pressure. I don't know the timing of the Bears schedule, but it is most likely to happen when they get home field advantage wrapped up, so if any of the games navin mentions above come in week 15-17 or so, those would be the best candidates.

DVOA is clearly rankd 2 hi becuz Every football expirt knows that the AFC is way supur betor than the NFC. Monkeys flipping coins iz way bettir then this. Since CHI and PHI are the top 2 teams, and IND izn't even in the top 2, this sistem must be uber reterded. You guyz r ridikulus and shuld be kicked off the net. (Wonders if this will get through the filters)

Will Allem (77) - the last three games are Bucs, @Lions, and Packers. Note exactly an imposing stretch. But we'll lose a few of @NYJ, @NYG, @NWE, and @STL.

I know the numbers is what the numbers is, but, damn, the Giants sure do not seem to me to be a team that should have a below average variance. IIRC, they did last year, too, and as a fan I found them to be maddeningly inconsistent.

43: Like someone said already, since the Bears play Cover 2 the safety will be covering deep the majority of the time. Also, while Manning is always dangerous, he is most dangerous because he eats blitzes alive by audibling (audible-ing?) and throwing to the hot receiver. When a defense can get good pressure rushing only 4 and leaving 7 in coverage, Manning is much more human. The Bears are such a team.

As for the Eagles, they have a bunch of good threats, but don't have a huge gamebreaker at WR. Last year, at least, the Bears success against the pass came from completely neutralizing receivers 2-5. Against #1's they were good but not great. They lost in the playoffs because Steve Smith can beat teams by himself and the Bears refused to adjust.

65: I posted this elsewhere, but on the pfr blog (linked), they list the biggest point margins of all 5-0 teams since 1970. The 99 Rams are first, with a margin of 123 points and 4 wins by at least 20. This years Bears are second @120 and 4 20 point wins (The Bears and Rams are the only 2 teams to do this). The 91 Skins were third with a margin of about 110. Of course this doesn't guarantee anything; the 74 Pats rank 6th or so and they finished 7-7, but it does indicate good things.

Of course by typing these things I have guaranteed that the Bears will lose a bunch of games stupidly and miss the playoffs. Such is life.

Oh, I think you're right, johnt. It'll take a superior offensive line performance to beat the Bears in the playoffs, along with getting pressure on Grossman. There's certainly a non-trivial chance that it could happen, but it has to recognized how historically dominant their performance has been through five games. It'll be fun to watch.

Am I the only person remotely impressed with the Rams' spectacularly average special teams rating?

#30
So, based solely on less than 1/3 of the schedule, I’m going to subjectively eliminate teams from winning the superbowl based on the numbers and what I subjectively believe a team requires to win the Superbowl. My criteria is pretty simple. To win the superbowl, a team needs to rank in the top 10 in both offense and defense, and might not want to suck horribly on special teams.

Seeing that you didn't list Dallas this year because of their -4.5%, 27th ranked ST DVOA, I'm guessing that -3.8%, 25th ranked is also not good enough. I'm going to define sucking horribly as being in the bottom 10. So...

Week 6, 2005:
Cincinnati (6/4/6)
Indianapolis (5/5/21)
[Pittsburgh is out at 3/7/25]

Week 6, 2004:
Philadelphia (3/9/3)
New England (4/3/22) [BARELY]

Week 6, 2003:
Seattle (4/4/10)
Denver (8/10/18)
[New England is out at 17/15/15]
[Carolina is out at 22/23/2]

Lessons:
1. DVOA is way better now than in 2003.
2. Early season special teams ratings do not seem to be important at all (in predicting Super Bowl winners).

#83: I actually had to double-take at it more than the offence, so yes.

I'd like the Bears more but I 1) see too many problems that good teams can exploit (provided they actually play any good teams), and 2) their fans are talking about the super bowl in week 5 (3, actually, if I recall correctly). I'm sure the football gods will not take kindly to this.