RSS Feed
DVOA Analysis
Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season
Most Recent FO Features
» SDA/FEI Bowl Mash-Up Part III
Buckeyes or Longhorns? Refresh yourself with the wisdom of our college football experts before tonight's Fiesta Bowl, then use this thread for in-game comments.
Most Recent Extra Points
18 Sep 2007
Week 2 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
How 'bout them Cowboys? More importantly, how 'bout them Texans?
Actually, in the long run, those Cowboys and Texans may not be quite as wonderful as you think, but more on that in a bit.
Note as of Wednesday night: Due to an error, the original numbers published on Tuesday for Denver, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Washington were incorrect. They are now fixed. This error only effected team ratings, not individual numbers.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through two weeks of 2007, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.) OFFENSE and DEFENSE VOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season.
There are no opponent adjustments in VOA until the fourth week of the season, which is why it is VOA right now rather than DVOA. Instead, we use DAVE, which combines the preseason projection with the results of early games to give us a better prediction of how each team will rank at the end of the year. In this week's DAVE ratings, the preseason projection counts for 75 percent, and the current VOA counts for 25 percent. (Last week, the ratio was 90/10.)
Offense, defense, and special teams pages are updated through Week 2. We also have updated all the individual stats pages for the first time: quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends. Loser League stats are updated, with some Week 1 mistakes now fixed. Here is the schedule for updating our other numbers:
- 2007 will be added to the DVOA Premium Database by Thursday night.
- Adjusted Line Yards and Adjusted Sack Rate will be updated beginning after Week 3.
- Defense vs. Types of Receivers will be updated beginning after Week 4.
- The Playoff Odds Report will debut for 2007 after Week 4.
To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:
<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
DAVE | RANK |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | NE | 88.3% | 2 | 47.2% | 1 | 88.4% | 2-0 | 57.6% | 1 | -28.7% | 3 | 2.0% | 14 |
| 2 | PIT | 82.3% | 1 | 28.2% | 2 | 84.9% | 2-0 | 28.6% | 4 | -50.0% | 1 | 3.6% | 10 |
| 3 | DAL | 48.5% | 5 | 4.8% | 11 | 52.7% | 2-0 | 50.2% | 2 | 7.0% | 20 | 5.3% | 7 |
| 4 | HOU | 46.0% | 8 | -1.5% | 16 | 44.2% | 2-0 | 15.2% | 7 | -19.8% | 5 | 11.0% | 4 |
| 5 | IND | 41.4% | 3 | 15.6% | 6 | 45.2% | 2-0 | 35.5% | 3 | -10.2% | 11 | -4.3% | 23 |
| 6 | DEN | 35.5% | 10 | 9.0% | 9 | 33.4% | 2-0 | 15.6% | 6 | -39.2% | 2 | -19.2% | 30 |
| 7 | BAL | 26.8% | 20 | 15.7% | 5 | 19.5% | 1-1 | -15.6% | 23 | -26.4% | 4 | 16.0% | 1 |
| 8 | DET | 25.3% | 6 | -0.8% | 15 | 21.7% | 2-0 | 10.8% | 11 | -13.0% | 10 | 1.5% | 15 |
| 9 | GB | 23.5% | 16 | 10.1% | 8 | 19.1% | 2-0 | 3.0% | 16 | -14.0% | 9 | 6.4% | 6 |
| 10 | MIN | 16.6% | 4 | -2.6% | 19 | 13.3% | 1-1 | -6.5% | 19 | -18.2% | 7 | 4.9% | 8 |
| 11 | ARI | 16.2% | 14 | -9.9% | 23 | 20.9% | 1-1 | 13.0% | 9 | -5.2% | 15 | -2.0% | 20 |
| 12 | TB | 13.0% | 24 | 11.1% | 7 | 7.8% | 1-1 | 5.1% | 15 | -5.3% | 14 | 2.6% | 13 |
| 13 | WAS | 8.2% | 13 | 6.9% | 10 | 18.1% | 2-0 | 6.5% | 13 | -1.4% | 17 | 0.3% | 18 |
| 14 | SEA | 7.2% | 7 | 1.8% | 13 | 9.1% | 1-1 | 11.1% | 10 | 8.1% | 22 | 4.3% | 9 |
| 15 | CIN | 4.1% | 15 | -1.6% | 17 | 5.8% | 1-1 | 23.2% | 5 | -2.1% | 16 | -21.2% | 31 |
| 16 | JAC | -1.3% | 21 | 18.2% | 3 | 0.6% | 1-1 | 2.3% | 17 | 4.3% | 19 | 0.8% | 17 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
DAVE | RANK |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | STL | -2.2% | 22 | -19.2% | 29 | -1.6% | 0-2 | -4.4% | 18 | -0.9% | 18 | 1.4% | 16 |
| 18 | CHI | -5.0% | 25 | 1.6% | 14 | -4.3% | 1-1 | -36.9% | 32 | -18.9% | 6 | 13.0% | 3 |
| 19 | PHI | -6.2% | 17 | 18.0% | 4 | -2.3% | 0-2 | -8.1% | 21 | -9.7% | 12 | -7.8% | 24 |
| 20 | TEN | -8.1% | 12 | -7.0% | 21 | -9.7% | 1-1 | 6.9% | 12 | 12.0% | 26 | -3.0% | 22 |
| 21 | SF | -14.1% | 19 | -4.7% | 20 | -13.6% | 2-0 | -28.0% | 29 | -6.2% | 13 | 7.7% | 5 |
| 22 | CAR | -15.5% | 11 | 3.9% | 12 | -10.2% | 1-1 | 6.4% | 14 | 7.2% | 21 | -14.7% | 29 |
| 23 | MIA | -21.9% | 18 | -16.2% | 28 | -32.0% | 0-2 | -13.4% | 22 | 11.3% | 25 | 2.8% | 12 |
| 24 | SD | -35.4% | 9 | -2.2% | 18 | -40.2% | 1-1 | -26.2% | 28 | 8.8% | 23 | -0.4% | 19 |
| 25 | CLE | -36.5% | 31 | -13.4% | 24 | -34.6% | 1-1 | -7.2% | 20 | 32.1% | 29 | 2.9% | 11 |
| 26 | ATL | -38.6% | 29 | -9.5% | 22 | -38.8% | 0-2 | -20.0% | 24 | 9.2% | 24 | -9.5% | 27 |
| 27 | KC | -38.6% | 26 | -28.8% | 32 | -32.0% | 0-2 | -31.4% | 30 | -14.4% | 8 | -21.7% | 32 |
| 28 | NYG | -45.7% | 28 | -14.1% | 26 | -41.7% | 0-2 | 13.1% | 8 | 56.7% | 32 | -2.2% | 21 |
| 29 | BUF | -47.6% | 23 | -15.4% | 27 | -43.7% | 0-2 | -32.4% | 31 | 28.8% | 28 | 13.6% | 2 |
| 30 | OAK | -50.1% | 27 | -21.7% | 30 | -32.8% | 0-2 | -22.4% | 25 | 19.1% | 27 | -8.6% | 26 |
| 31 | NYJ | -78.1% | 32 | -13.7% | 25 | -71.2% | 0-2 | -25.8% | 27 | 39.9% | 30 | -12.4% | 28 |
| 32 | NO | -78.2% | 30 | -22.9% | 31 | -69.6% | 0-2 | -23.0% | 26 | 47.3% | 31 | -7.9% | 25 |
A note on DAVE: Like I did a year ago, I am tweaking the projections used in DAVE to account for major early injuries and quarterback changes. The main impact here is to drop the offensive projection for St. Louis (Orlando Pace) and Washington (Jon Jansen). I decided not to mess with any of the injured quarterback situations and the change to Derek Anderson doesn't end up affecting the Browns projection.
For this week's commentary, I'm going to take a look at the teams since 2001 whose DVOA after two games differed most from preseason projections. We don't care about situations like this year's Steelers, where there's a big difference simply because a team that already had a good projection blows out its first two opponents. So we'll leave out any team that starts well with a projection above 3.0% or starts badly with a projection below -3.0%. We also want teams that looked good or bad in both games, not teams that started 1-1 with one close game and one blowout. We'll grade each team as either poor projection or early fluke. Note that the projections are by the current system, not by the system used that year.
STRONG STARTS
2002 Chargers
Projection: -1.6% DVOA
After 2 Games: 84.0% DVOA
The Chargers started out 6-1, then had a bye week, and then ended 2-7. It was one of the great second-half collapses in recent memory. They won their first two games 34-6 at Cincinnati and then 24-3 against the expansion Texans at home. Of course, by the end of the season, with opponent adjustments in place, the DVOA for these games went from 84.0% to 51.4%. The third win came in Arizona, 23-15. That's three wins to start the season -- against three of the bottom four teams in the league. Verdict: Early fluke.
2001 Chargers
Projection: 1.9% DVOA
After 2 Games: 70.3% DVOA
Honestly, what was with the Chargers at the turn of the century? They had those years with great defense and the worst quarterbacks in history, then these two years where they started strong and collapsed. The 2001 Chargers started 5-2 and then lost nine straight to finish the year. Their two biggest wins of the year according to DVOA were the opening 30-3 stomping of Washington and a 28-14 Week 3 win against Cincinnati. In between, they won 32-21 at Dallas. The 5-11 Chargers ended the year 11th in DVOA (6.8%) and 17th in weighted DVOA (-5.1%) because they were so bad after Week 7. Verdict: Early fluke.
2003 Bills
Projection: -4.4% DVOA
After 2 Games: 58.3% DVOA
One game will forever be used to caution people who get carried away after surprising Week 1 results: Buffalo 31, New England 0. In their second game, the Bills went on the road and beat the Jaguars 38-17. However, the Bills lost their next two, and by the time the Chiefs stomped them 38-5 on Sunday night of Week 8, nobody was talking about them as a serious contender. Verdict: Early fluke.
2005 Bucs
Projection: 2.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: 57.8% DVOA
This was the third year of Football Outsiders and by now it seemed we were stuck with the Bucs as the team that never had a record to match their DVOA. In our first Pro Football Prospectus, we wrote that we didn't believe the Bucs' somewhat positive projection. Whoops -- sort of. Although the Bucs ended up 11-5, they didn't end up with one of the top DVOA ratings in the league. They were actually 16th at 1.3% -- slightly below the projection, and far below their first two games. Verdict: Early fluke.
2004 Falcons
Projection: -11.8% DVOA
After 2 Games: 39.3% DVOA
This is a strange one. The Falcons started the year with a 21-19 victory in San Francisco that barely registered as positive (2.6%) and then beat St. Louis 34-17 with a much larger rating than that score indicates (76.0%). Remember, both of those ratings do not include opponent adjustments, because we're talking about what things looked like after just two weeks. The Falcons ended up winning the division at 11-5 but actually ranked 17th with -2.7% DVOA, in large part because this was the year with the biggest discrepancy between the two conferences. Philadelphia was the only NFC team in the top 11, and the Falcons, if I remember right, had the second-highest DVOA in the NFC before they started resting guys for the playoffs in Week 16. Verdict: (Mildly) poor projection.
2002 Panthers
Projection: -2.2% DVOA
After 2 Games: 47.1% DVOA
Coming off a 1-15 season, the Panthers won their first three games, including a 31-7 drubbing of Detroit in Week 2. Then they lost eight straight and ended up 7-9 with a -9.2% DVOA, which ranked 24th. Verdict: Early fluke.
WEAK STARTS
2006 Bucs
Projection: 15.8% DVOA
After 2 Games: -57.6% DVOA
Dammit, Tampa, what is your problem? Coming off a wild card season, the Bucs got stomped at home by Baltimore, 27-0, then lost 14-3 in Atlanta. This one is blatantly obvious: Poor projection.
2006 Raiders
Projection: -2.3% DVOA
After 2 Games: -72.6% DVOA
Look, we had to convince everyone that the Raiders had defensive talent, but we all knew that the Raiders' offensive projection for 2006 made no sense whatsoever. Verdict: Poor projection.
2005 Ravens
Projection: 9.7% DVOA
After 2 Games: -58.7% DVOA
People in Baltimore were a bit worried when the Ravens lost to the Colts at home, 24-7, but it isn't like Indianapolis was a bad team. It was a bit more worrying when the Ravens dropped their second game in Tennessee, 25-10. By the 35-17 loss in Detroit in Week 5, it seemed clear the Ravens were not the team they had been in previous years. Their offense went from bad to miserable and their defense went from spectacular to merely very good. The projection system didn't see this coming at all. Verdict: Poor projection.
2003 Eagles
Projection: 6.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: -52.1% DVOA
Hey, everyone remember how weird this was? The Eagles lost to Tampa Bay 17-0, setting up a Week 2 meeting between two teams that were shut out in Week 1 despite high expectations: Philadelphia and New England. The Patriots won 31-10, and then the Eagles went on bye week. I'm sure Mike Tanier has a million stories about how Philly sports radio was freaking out during that week. Of course, the Eagles were fine, going 12-2 the rest of the way. This is a good example of why it is important to consider opponents in the first two weeks, even if our ratings do not -- once the full-season opponent adjustments were applied, the Eagles' DVOA for these two weeks was -31.6%, not -52.1%. The Eagles ended the season seventh in the NFL with a 15.6% DVOA, much higher than their preseason projection and way, way beyond what they did in the first two weeks. Verdict: Early fluke.
2002 Ravens
Projection: 1.9% DVOA
After 2 Games: -46.3% DVOA
At a certain point, this "hey, let's play without a quarterback" thing was going to come back and bite them. Baltimore started the year by losing 10-7 to Carolina. Remember how surprising that was, the 1-15 Panthers of 2001 beating the Super Bowl champions from just two years earlier? Then in Week 2, the Ravens were slammed 25-0 by the eventual champion Bucs. This signified that the Ravens were worse than the year before, but they weren't this much worse. After their bye in Week 3, the Ravens went 7-7, an inconsistent team that ended up with an average record and a relatively average -1.5% DVOA, much closer to their projection. Verdict: Early fluke.
2002 Steelers
Projection: 9.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: -32.8% DVOA
The Steelers opened with a rematch of the AFC Championship game and lost to the Patriots, 30-14. Then they hosted the Raiders and lost at home, 30-17. Again, consider the opponents. The Steelers were 0-2 but had lost to the defending AFC Champion and the eventual AFC Champion. Like Baltimore, Pittsburgh had a bye in Week 3. Unlike Baltimore, the Steelers weren't average after the bye -- they were very good, finishing the year 10-5-1 with a 7.3% DVOA. Verdict: Early fluke.
2006 Dolphins
Projection: 8.3% DVOA
After 2 Games: -32.8% DVOA
Oddly, the 2006 Dolphins end up with a much higher projection in the current system than they had with the earlier version of the projection system I was actually using before the 2006 season. Then, of course, they blew chunks. Verdict: Poor projection.
OK, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
First of all, understand that this is a production of Small Sample Size Theatre, and no trends here guarantee the future for any teams in 2007.
However, the trend seems to be really strong for teams which start strong despite a bad projection. It goes past just the teams listed above. Think back just one year. TheBills and 49ers began 2006 with two games with positive VOA ratings after terrible projections, although each team was 1-1, not 2-0. The 2006 Vikings started 2-0, although the wins were too close for the Vikings to show up on the list above. For all three teams, the good start turned out to be a fluke, and the DVOA by the end of the year was much closer to the preseason projection.
But wait, there's more. The 2004 Lions, the 2001 Bengals... After the 2004 Falcons, to find a team with a bad projection whose fast start showed that the projection was wrong, the best we can do is the 2003 Vikings, who had a preseason projection of -5.6% and a DVOA after two games of 27.0%. They ended the season with a 7.7% DVOA. Of course, they also blew a 6-0 start and missed the playoffs.
Now think about the opponents of the three teams that are 2-0 despite poor preseason projections. Houston beat the Chiefs, who are going to be terrible, and the Panthers, who are better but constantly seem to play below their talent level. Detroit beat the Raiders and Vikings, two teams we expected to be bad. Dallas beat the Giants and Dolphins, two teams we expected to be bad. There are strong, strong indications that this early success will not hold up over the long haul.
(That being said, Dallas isn't in quite the same boat as Detroit and Houston. Many of the FO writers felt the statistical projection for the Cowboys was suspiciously low, so the fast start isn't as much of a surprise.)
What about the teams with good projections and poor starts: the Eagles, the Jets, and -- although they managed to escape with a win Sunday -- the Jaguars? Similar teams since 2001 are a mixed bag. Some of them do right the ship and end up playing well the rest of the year. For others, the early losses showed that the projection was completely off-target. If there is any trend here, it is that up-and-down teams seem to keep losing, while the teams that have been consistent in recent years tend to rebound from early failure. (The 2005 Ravens are an exception.) To be frank, this trend fits with common sense. I think the chances that our projections were wrong for the Jaguars and Jets are much higher than the chance that our projection was wrong for the Eagles. Don't jump off the bridge yet, Philadelphians. Remember 2003!
Finally, in the Quick Reads comments, someone asked about Josh McCown's performance in the Oakland-Denver game that the data parser originally didn't process correctly. Yes, it was as bad as you thought it was. McCown was 8-for-16 with just 73 passing yards, one touchdown, three interceptions, four sacks, and two fumbles (both recovered by Oakland). That day was worth -17.5 PAR passing, although he did earn 1.7 PAR rushing with two scrambles for 28 yards. It doesn't quite reach the level of the really atrocious games of history, stuff like Rex Grossman's Monday night in Arizona last year, but it was pretty bad.
Not that it changes the meaning of the sentence, but Detroit beat Oakland not Atlanta.
Detroit beat the raiders. the vikings beat the falcons. That is all :)
The people who think the Cowboys look great for beating up on the Giants and the Dolphins are the same ones who will say they suck when they get smacked by the Bears this week. Oh well.
I predict FO gets a lot of hate from Boys fans this year: they'll probably go 10-6 or even 11-5, but with a DVOA that's no better than middle of the pack.
I'm just happy they're in the NFC, where they could find themselves not only in the playoffs, but with homefield advantage as well. And from there, anything can happen.
Philly's 2 losses still appear, to me, to be outlying incidents. Green Bay is good and their defense is very good. Even so, that was a Philly win if 2 punts get caught. Hell, if 1 punt got caught.
The loss to Washington is more worrisome, but Philly lost to the Giants in game 2 last year...also, MNF showed that Reid is not a particularly fast starter, going 9-11 over his tenure at Philadelphia, in the first 2 games. 6 of those losses come from this year, 2003, and his first year. Still, it's indicative of a trend that surprises me he hasn't picked up on yet - his teams take way too long to gel because he doesn't play them much in the preseason.
I'm an amateur, so I know there's alot more to this than what I see. But I've never liked how Reid manages his teams prior to the season.
denver's really ranked 28th on offense with over 900 yards...?
How was the Jon Jansen adjustment calculated? It looks like it cost the skins 4.6% DAVE.
That seems extreme, although it's probably accurate if Randy Thomas is really done for the season.
So this seems like an numerical question rather than an anecdotal one. Couldn't one simply look at the RMS (or trimmed RMS) of the DAVE projection minus the final season DVOA, and the RMS of the first two games' DVOA minus the final season DVOA, and whichever is smaller is the better guide?
One could also make the same numbers as a function of the number of games to see when the DVOA data outweighs the DAVE.
(As a flourish, if DAVE is a better indicator early on, it might be better to use DAVE for, for instance, the opponent corrections).
(As another flourish you could combine them weighted by the inverse squares of the RMS's to form the optimal indicator.)
Are you trying to tell me the Falcons and the Raiders aren't the same team?
I guess my question remains: how does this explain the Chargers? I know they played Chicago and NE in the first two weeks, and yet I remain surprised that they're in such a level of suck - ranked 24th in both offense and defense after two weeks. What gives?
VOA (without the D) is always a little confusing since it treats all opponents as equal - and on this site we've become accustomed to thinking otherwise. I'd guess when the adjustments begin, the main riser in the top ten will be (yikes) New England, while the numbers could fall for the defense in Denver (Losman and McCown!?), Houston and Detroit.
It's great that you now have enough seasons of DVOA to be able to go through the history and find comparisons. For what it's worth, I don't agree about Philly, I think they're headed for another 2005-type season, where the numbers exceed what goes on on the field.
#5: Just goes to show that yards are a pretty meaningless stat. I do have to admit some surprise though, because besides the yards, the Broncos are ranked 17th in points scored. Couple those two items and it shouldn't equal 28th on offense in VOA. I mean... Kansas City has better offensive VOA?
9: The Bolts' numbers aren't that big a surprise. The offense has been inept; the defense is better but the Pats' game is distorting the figures.
NB Even without the opponent adjustments, the AFC has six of the top seven teams.
Let me tell you why you don't have to be too down on the Jaguars just yet.
1. DVOA likes their passing offense (top-10, a vast improvement over last year) even though perhaps their best receiver is a rookie who hasn't seen the field much but who likely will as the season progresses.
2. Their rushing offense has gotten off to a slow start this year. They have 188 yards in two games. However, as Vic Ketchman pointed out today, the Jaguars had exactly 188 yards after two games last yera. They were 21st last year after two games in rushing offense, they are 19th this year (conventional stats). They ended the year with a very good rushing offense.
3. They are still installing a first-year offense.
4. Brad Meester will come back at center, sometime around the bye week.
5. The defense showed marked improvement over Week 1. They are still missing an OLB who will return hopefully. Marcus Stroud missed a lot of time last year and is still working his way back. Before last week, Hayward hadn't played since week 1 last season. Mike Peterson missed a big chunk of last year. I think they have a good chance of getting a better defensive effort over the next few games, especially as Reggie Nelson progresses.
I noticed that Dallas Clark is now listed on the wide receiver stats page. Have you officially decided that he is actually a wide out?
Well, I guess we'll see how this pans out this week, with Hou hosting Indy. Is DAVE (rankings of 16/6) more accurate than VOA (4/5)? Plus these items not captured in the above anaylsis: Subtract Andre Johnson and I suspect Hou's VOA drops a bit. Add back in Indy's injured LBs (one of their thinnest positions) and I suspect VOA rises there. Stay tuned.
Wow, somebody in one of the discussion threads asked "is there a weaker 2-0 team than SF?" and looks like VOA and DAVE agree!
Although I agree that the Texans will not end the season as the 4th ranked DVOA team, I still think they will end up much better than the pre-season projection from this site. I projected 8-8 or 9-7 with a 10-6 possible if the defensive line played up to potential. The defense is looking good and I think 10-6 is looking very attainable. The schedule is weak, as it generally is for most bottom of the league records from the previous year.
That OVER bet on the 6.5 win totals I made is looking VERY good.
One reason to be more pessimistic about the Eagles:
They don't have a healthy quarterback. The projection at least implicitly assumed McNabb would be back at near full strength, but that hasn't happened.
After watching both games I can see that he is not able to accurately throw any passes he has to step into, as though he isn't yet confident or comfortable on his knee. Until he can throw the ball accurately more than 15 yards, the Eagles might as well be playing Koy Detmer at QB.
Functionally, you'd defend the current McNabb the same way you would Koy: jam the underneath zones and dare him to throw over your heads or the deep sideline routes. After the knee injury, McNabb is just about as likely to hurt you running as Koy would have.
McNabb should eventually get back to where he was last year before the injury, but the Eagles may lose 3-4 more games before that. :(
Categorizing the unbeaten teams:
Apparently 65 percent of 2-0 teams make the playoffs; that's six or seven of the ten teams currently unbeaten.
Perennial sure things: Pats, Colts. Will New England win its division before or after week 11?
Looking solid: Steelers, Packers.
Lucky plus easy division: Denver, Niners (who are actually the worst team in the NFCW in VOA).
Young quarterbacks, savvy coaches: Redskins, Cowboys.
We have no idea if they're for real because they've only played guys named Mccown, Huard, Tarvaris...: Lions, Texans.
And lurking in the VOA shadows: grizzled old campaigners Seattle and Baltimore.
14: I want to say this was discussed on the site in the last two weeks somewhere, but given how he is used in Indy's offense and where he lines up, he's a WR. He sometimes lines up as the wide out with Wayne or someone else in the slot, and rarely lines up with the offensive line like a TE does.
"The schedule is weak, as it generally is for most bottom of the league records from the previous year."
Nonsense. Only two games per season vary according to the previous year's finish. Last year the Packers, for instance, faced New Orleans and Philadelphia in these games, both eventual division winners.
Right now I'd be happier as top-placed Chicago, taking on the Saints and Seahawks, than as bottom-placed Tampa, who face Detroit and Washington.
The Texans' (and Colts', and Titans') easy schedule is due to the collapse of the AFC West and the ineptitude of the NFC South.
Denver's pass defense VOA is -143%. Granted, they haven't been up against Peyton Manning or anything, but I think this Champ Bailey and Dre Bly combination is working out alright so far.
There is clearly an error regarding Denver. Minus 34.1%??? for offense VOA? I'm pretty sure it should be plus 34.1%. They've been racking up the yardage. Please correct.
#17: That's actually a reason to be optimistic about the Eagles, not pessimistic. He'll get better.
The reason to be pessimistic is simple. None of the receivers are getting open. If you remember last year, the Eagles were a bit "touchdown or three-and-out" early on. Gee, if your receivers can't get open, that's what's going to happen. Eventually one will break the coverage when some dopey corner/safety makes a mistake, and then, with an accurate deep ball (which McNabb has), it's an easy TD. But right now, McNabb doesn't have that accurate deep ball because of his knee.
Personally, I'm mind-blowingly amazed at that negative offensive DVOA. I didn't think they looked that bad, but certainly they looked bad. But last in the league? 2004-2005 49ers bad? Raiders bad? Really?
I don't think Jamal Lewis really has 11 fumbles already this year. I'm guessing that may be depressing his FO metrics.
9... The Chargers are explained by Norv Turner. He had a losing record against Rich Kotite.
#22:
There is clearly an error regarding Denver. Minus 34.1%??? for offense VOA? I’m pretty sure it should be plus 34.1%. They’ve been racking up the yardage. Please correct.
If they had a +34.1% that would give them a total VOA in the 118% range, which obviously does not make more sense. Yardage does not always equal a good offense.
Re: 24. That might be the weirdest thing I've seen. No idea how the HTML macro turned 1 and 1 into 11 instead of 2. It is not reflected in his ratings.
Re: 14/19. Yes, I made a decision that Dallas Clark plays wideout more than twice as often as he plays tight end, he is a wideout. I discussed in the Week 1 Audibles.
Re: Denver. Top offenses by number of plays run so far: Denver 144, New Orleans 140, Detroit 139, St. Louis 133.
Can someone please justify this for me? Jason Campbell's VOA is +3.8%, but the Redskins' passing VOA is -83.8%. I realize they don't have to be the same, but...man...that's a huge discrepancy.
Besides that, I would have expected the Skins' offensive and defensive VOAs each to be mildly to moderately negative, as opposed to how ferociously negative they are. But that's more of a feeling, so I'm not really questioning it the way I am the thing with Campbell vs. the passing offense.
the Steelers weren’t average after the bye — they were very good, finishing the year 10-5-1 with a 7.3% DVOA
Funny how other folks look at 2002 as a successful year for the Steelers.
We local folk tend to remember those two early losses and almost a third (against the Browns, until Maddox entered), the sudden need for an untested kicker, the infamous loss to the Texans, the Falcons tie (the "-1" in that Cowher's eleven point stat), a near loss to the Browns in the playoffs, and some really bad play to lose to the Titans and their thespian kicker to end it all.
I guess "success" is relative.
The NFC North is no longer the weakest division in football. It looks like a cat fight between the NFC South and NFC West.
Denver's non-adj offense voa is 35.6%, and their voa is -34.1%. What are the adjustments made to get from non-adjusted voa to voa? Does this mean adjusting plays for game situation? I haven't gotten the sense from watching the games that this team was among the worst in offensive value. The team is at the league median in scoring and at the top of the league in yardage, and hasn't been reliant on the big play, so I'm not sure what to make of this metric rating them at the bottom of the league.
Re: 30
If I had to choose which division to play (all four teams), I think I would go with the AFC East. Other than the Pats the rest of that group seems pretty bad right now.
Check out the circular isolation of GB, Phi, NYG, Was, Dal and Mia on www.beatpaths.com
The answer to a lot of these questions is that weird things happen with only two weeks of data. Wait a couple weeks, then see if things look so odd.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but this broncos offensive DVOA is confusing me. Is it being affected by the very low success rate for Travis Henry? I'm curious where that stat is coming from because as I watch the games I don't see henry as a boom or bust back that a 48% success rate would indicate. Other that that his DPAR is solid. Cutler's stats look pretty good too. So how does denver have one of the worst offenses in the league?
Re: 31 Denver’s non-adj offense voa is 35.6%
Actually, it's their total non-adjusted VOA. It includes the defense. Which is amazing good, and probably the reason their offense looks better in conventional statistics. The adjustment is from 35.6% to 30.7%.
#32 Why accept that one loss to NE, when you could have four wins against mediocre teams at best? If I am a top 5 team, I would play the NS then NW and be favored by at least 7 points in all contests.
Re: 37
Well, sure if you're a top five team. I'm a Browns fan. The thought never occurred to me.
#31
That's Non-Adj total VOA, there is no adjustment yet. The Broncos seem low because they have a lot of plays, but have fewer points than what you'd expect from a team with their yardage (19 points on 455 yards or 72 plays a game). They haven't played well on third down with only 13 conversions out of 30 attempts. They also have two fumbles that they recovered, so DVOA treats them as turnovers but the drives continued. Jay Cutler has 3 interceptions as well. They have just 3 TDs compared to 9 FGA. Since this is a small sample size, the OFF VOA is being skewed by penalties because the Broncos have been a poor 3rd down team and haven't scored as many points as you'd expect from a team with as many plays as they've had. The -34.1 is lower than I would have guessed from watching the games, but I can believe it and there's no way that offense should have a +34.1 VOA. The good news for the Broncos is that they are 2-0 and the offense should improve.
That Denver offensive stat is mind boggling.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that the ranking isn't as good as the performance would appear according to traditional per game stats, but it's still pretty strange. I mean, Denver was top ten after the Bills game, so this ranking suggests that Denver played WAY below average against the Raiders.
Yet, Denver's average drive was over 40 yards. They sustained a lot of first downs and looked to have some good successes. They simply didn't look like a team that was having anywhere near even below average success rates.
Sure, Cutler threw two picks and they had a safety, so the ranking doesn't utterly shock me, but it still does surprise me quite a bit.
Usually teams that are able to have a good number of long drives end up with good DVOAs because DVOA basically measures how successfully teams are able to keep drives going.
It would be nice to see some elaboration. I mean, Denver has taken a lot of snaps overall, but of the traditional per attempt stats which are the more reliable of traditional stats because they aren't skewed by how often teams pass or run because of being behind or ahead, Denver ranks 10th in yards per completion and fifth in yards per carry.
I can only think that the negative result came from the fact that the running game was stuffed relatively often and that the yards came on a few big plays, but that still doesn't mesh with ranking quite THIS poorly.
NFC North in DAVE GB 8, Chic 14, Det 15, Minn 19...pretty respectable for this division.
40: Well, ignoring the turnovers for a moment, if Denver is failing on a lot of first and second downs and then converting on 3rd and long, that could explain the discrepancy. I haven't actually watched any Denver games, so I don't know if this is the case.
Ok, some other things about Denver look sketchy. I mean, Denver has been stellar against the pass. That's pretty obvious, but Denver hasn't looked very good against the run ranking 30th in the league in yards per carry allowed, but then they rank fourth in defensive DVOA against Oakland. That's pretty shocking.
This all is more than just a little counter intuitive.
I mean that they rank fourth in defensive DVOA against the run overall. Not just against Oakland.
Now I really want to see a breakdown of this game. These results are nuts.
still trying to conceptualize the Broncos terrible offensive rating. Lets say that the defense was just overwhelmingly good and the Broncos were just getting a ton of extra possessions to rack up the extra yardage. If that were the case then you would think the Broncos would be leading the league in number of punts. But actually Denver has only punted 5 times in 2 games. (New England has punted just twice- wow)
Looking at Drive Charts- The Denver offense has driven the team into scoring position 12 times vs only 8 times that they did not. (3 INT, 5 Punts) The 2 recovered fumbles have an effect. Does the fact that Denver has missed 4 fieldgoals have an affect on the offensive numbers?
Still just odd to me that a team that is consistently moving the ball like this is rated so poorly on offense. Not a criticism of the system- obviously the offense hasn't been good since they have almost lost 2 games that the defense has played great in but its just surprising all the same. Or maybe this is just reinforcing how much better it is to score TD's instead of settling for FG attempts.
I'm thinking that the Broncos bad, recurring habit of failing to get in the end zone in goal-to-go situations doesn't help matters. Honestly, I'm still grinning about the -84% defensive VOA. I know it's a meaningless number since it's unadjusted and it's just for two weeks, but it still looked prettty nice to me. Hopefully when the adjusments are added in it doesn't get completely ruined. (also hoping the Broncos don't completely ruin it by themselves when they start seeing better opponents)
Re40:
I didn't mean yards per completion. I mean yards per attempt.
#43
I think you're on to something. To correct my previous point, they have been above average on 3rd down (43%). They also haven't been efficient in turning plays and drives into points.
Maybe the fact that Denver is 3 for 3 on 4th down has something to do with this as well.
See, this is an example of Aaron's stats being so much more valuable than traditional stats. Oakland dominated the game and would/could have won if not for sketchy officiating on Janikowski's winning field goal.
When a team (Oakland) dominates and is in position to win a game when their QB has one of the worst non-Grossman games in recent memory (McCown), that's a pretty good indication that the Raiders defensive VOA was really high and the Broncos offensive VOA was really, really low.
Pat #23 and Aaron #27:
How is Philadelphia the 32nd ranked rushing offense and Pittsburgh the 5th?
Westbrook is ranked one step above Parker in VOA and Buckhalter is one above Davis!
The VOA numbers make no sense at all. Are you sure there isn't an error?
Re: 43
Could it be the run yards were racked up when Oak was down by 2 TDs in the second half (I believe Denver was up big at halftime, that let Oak back in)? The VOA then isn't hurt as much because teams generally playing loose run D to stop the pass? Then, after Oak closes the score, they finish catching up with a safety and turnovers, which don't hurt the Def VOA?
Thats all I can think of... and like others, would love some further elaboration on the really strange Denver ratings (both Off & Def).
Well, at least we're not getting the "FO-is-biased-against-the-Broncos" noise. Chalk that up as one more reason to love this site.
My 2 cents: Denver must be underperforming on a lot of plays, relative to league averages, particularly high-value plays. The inability to get touchdowns strikes me as a strong factor. Perhaps they're running a lot of plays that other teams in the league do better at? (In other words, are they underperforming, play-by-play, relative to how other teams are performing on those same plays?)
Lastly, it might just be an aberrant factor of the lack of data, given only 2 games into the season. If it's still kooky in week 7, then things will get fun.
As a Broncos fan, though, let me enjoy this moment with the #1 defensive VOA, no matter how fleeting the moment is.
Aahhh...
Andrew,
I don't claim to know the technical explanation, but from my observations (I watched both games of both Pennsylvania teams), Pittsburgh's rushing has gotten first downs way more consistently than Philly's. Also, Davenport has gotten a lot more carries than Davis, so you may be overlooking that. Not to mention a long first-down rush by Cedric Wilson and another first down rush by Big Ben.
Ok I'm gonna betray my Bronco homerism a bit here, but this situation begs one question to me. Last year DVOA (accurately) showed that the Bronco D was not nearly as good as the conventional wisdom suggested in the early season because they were surrendering a tremendous number of yards but essentially getting lucky in the red zone to prevent scoring. Now DVOA is saying that the Broncos Offense stinks in spite of gaining a tremendous number of yards because it is failing to score points in the red zone. I know I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me that there is a contradiction here.
Looking at the Denver offensive VOA in further detail yields even more surprising results. T. Henry has a rush voa of 24.6%, Young's at 69.8%, M. Bell's at 21.4% and C. Sapp's at 45.1%. But Denver's Rush VOA is -38.8%. I think that running backs are only compared to other running backs and teams rush attempts are compared to all plays (pass or rush). Does this suggest that Denver's playcalling has been miserably poor?
Denver's pass offense has similar wierd splits: Cutler has a 18.3% pass voa and a 5.5% rush voa, but Denver has a -29.6% pass voa. Same caveat applies as in 56. But I'm surprised that the parts can perform so far above average while the whole performs decidedly below average.
ojb #54:
Westbrook, Tapeh and Buck have 9 first downs on 44 runs. Parker and Davenport and Davis have 16 in 68 runs. So 20% vs. 25 first downs. Westbrook is getting more yards per carry though, and more consistent moderately long runs while Parker has gotten a lot of his yards on 4 long runs. Yes the two wideout runs help Pittsburgh, as does Rothelisberger's couple of scrambles. But is that really the difference between #5 and #32???
How does a team drop from 7th to 29th over all in one game? I would expect even an epically lousy performance to only bring them down to mediocrity, not the depths of suckitude. I hesitate to suggest that the data is bad, but was raiderjoe the game charter for this one?
Ok, all of this and the fact that Denver v. Oakland game was the one with that parsing error suggest to me that something is funny.
I thought that maybe Denver's offensive DVOA would be slightly negatively affected by four down situations because a 3rd and 23 that gains 21 yards is normally a failure, but with two down territory, that's a terrific play.
Still, Denver ranked 7th in the league after the Buffalo game on offense, so this negative rating can only be coming fromt he Oakland game. And it had to truly be terrible to bring the VOA down this far after a far above average performance in the first week.
I have no idea, but I do know that it makes no sense for every rusher on a team to be above average in DVOA and then the total to be below average. I am not a DVOA expert, but I'm pretty sure that's impossible.
51. I don't know if this explains all of it, but Najeh Davenport is #3 in VOA, Cedrick Wilson (WR) has a 37 yd carry, and Roethlisberger is 4th is QB rushing VOA.
And I'm pretty late to the discussion on that one, sorry.
Like I really needed something else to show me how bad the Giants defense is. Their offense is twice as good as anyone else's in the bottom 10. I think Eli Manning's numbers (passing DVOA) would be even better if not for the meaningless (bad) numbers he got after the Packers game was already over. If they could get that defense between 20-25, they could make something happen. That's probably wishful thinking, I'd settle for better kickoff coverage at this point.
Maybe the computers applied an "Ultimate Leader" penalty because Denver didn't do as well as the computers thought a Shanahan-led team should do. ;)
29)
the key words: "we local folk"
"we local folk" here in Dallas think of 2006 as a dissapointment. However, even after four or five games of Romo, the best Cowboys DVOA projection was 3rd in the East.
In 2002, after the PITT early fluke, consistent play around the 9.1% projected DVOA compensated for the horrible start so that they finished very close to the projection - a successful 7.3%. coincidence?
you're right: your subjective expectations were high "relative" to the formulated projections.
There is no possible way that any team is worse than the Panthers Special Teams right now. They are pathetic. I don't know what KC did to get 32nd, but it is just an anomaly. The Panthers have the worst special teams I have ever seen in the NFL. I watch their kickoff and punt returns over and over and still can't figure out what they are trying to do. Whatever it is, the results are five guys tackling the ball carrier without a blocker in sight.
As per Denver's close scores in both games, I thought I'd talk about that a little.
I mean both Oakland and Buffalo have defenses that allow few yards per completion and don't give up the big play to force long drives. Last year they ranked 1st and 4th in yards per completion allowed, so that helps explain why Denver has had a hard time getting touchdowns. That and the fact that Denver has started inside of their own 25 on average so far this year. Other than after the Champ Bailey interception, Denver has had to sustain very long drives to attempt to score points.
Combine that with a couple of somewhat fluky plays like an Oakland onside kick (Which was a great call by Kiffin) and a touchdown returned for a touchdown after an int and you have a close game despite mostly dominating the game.
Considering the shear number of stats that go completely counter to this offensive rating, this really makes me scratch my head.
I wouldn't claim an anti-Denver bias in the stats, but I think it's worth looking into a potential error in the compilation.
67: Let's wait until at least week five before we make any conclusions about errors in the compilation of the stats, okay? We just don't have enough data in the first two weeks.
Does DVOA have a component for "inept but lucky"? Did you guys see this series last night? It set the NFL back 20 years:
Washington has the ball, 1st and ten at Philly's 49 with 46 seconds left. They have just meaninglessly burned their third and final time out.
:46 Pass to Moss for 11 yards, Moss wisely gets out of bounds (you watching, Randel El?)
:41 Campell scrambles for a big run, and makes it out of bounds after sidestepping the line, for 20 yards (you watching, Randel El?).
:32 Pass to Randel El, beautifully done up the sidelines (why aren't you covering the sidelines, Philly), but Randel El, in trying to get an extra two yards, allows himself to be tackled in bounds. He gets 17 yards. He could have had 15 and stopped the clock. Instead a full 18 seconds runs off the clock before Campell makes it to the line to spike the ball with 14 seconds left.
Skins have 14 seconds left, no timeouts, and they are on the Philly 1 with first and goal. You can call about sixteen hundred different pass plays, but you only need one. This isn't rocket science, people.
Unfortunately, the players stand around, ignoring the play clock, as do the coaches, until someone warns Gibbs and he starts frantically waving his arms as ESPN finally notices this and pans to the playclock, which reads 4....3....2....1...0.
Delay of game. 5 yard penalty. No time runs off. 14 seconds, first and goal from the six. You've still got about fifteen hundred different pass plays you can call that give you the opportunity to take a couple shots before having to kick a field goal. But that's all irrelevant, because on the next play:
False start. 5 yard penalty. no time off the clock, but now it's first and goal from the 11. And then, ANOTHER false start from the same player. Amazing. You'd think it was the Giants or something.
Now it is first and goal from the 16, still with 14 seconds on the clock.
In comes the kicking unit, because the Redskins say, oh crap, we've only got fourteen hundred pass plays we can run, better kick the field goal even though we were going to throw before, because the 16 yard line is an insurmountable distance to try, for example, a corner route, and a field goal will tie it on a game where this is our deepest penetration of the night.
Eagles call a time out to ice the kicker (I hate "icing the kicker").
Someone on the Redskins wakes up during the ensuing break and says "hey, if we were going to try this from the 11, why not try it at least once from the 16?" Cooley runs a corner route, and despite the fact he is tripled covered, Campbell makes a beautiful throw and connects for an amazing touchdown.
And the rest of the NFL winced as stupid penalty after stupid decision after stupid decision results in a touchdown.
I very much disagree morganja.
The Colts special teams could out suck the Panthers special teams any day of the week.
They are so bad...they've even infected AV...his kicking was beyond terrible against the Titans and the incubation period for the "Colts Special Teams Suckiness Virus" is one-year.
Coincidence? I think not.
#43, #44: That's an interesting catch. 4th in rush defense VOA with 30th in YPC allowed just can't be right.
Sidenote: so glad to see more Broncos fans. :-)
Man, I loved that ending to the half. Making them pay for icing the kicker was such a momentum turner.
When Randle El was tackled in bounds, I got the feeling that if he didn't hit his own guy, it would have been a touchdown. Tough not to gamble right there, no matter who you are.
The more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems that the data for DEN-OAK was parsed correctly. Denver put up 400+ yards of total offense and scored 20 points and their voa went from 16.5% to -34.1%. All of their running backs, and their qb have individual voa well above average, and their team rush voa and team pass voa are both pathetically bad.
Has there ever been a 400+ yard, 20 point effort that produced something on the order of -80% voa before? The OAK only calculation must be that bad to produce -34.1% when averaged against a 16.5%. Along the same lines, I'm not sure that the Denver defense performed as well as it would have had to in OAK to produce the move from -36% to -80%. That's like a -120% effort for the game!
Re: 69
I too watched that series of plays last night in complete disbelief... but gotta love Cooley ;-)
Hm... if Denver's parser *appeared* to fix itself but instead just silently threw away all the data after the lightning break, then that could explain a lot - throwing out most of a game's data could make Denver's defense appear unnaturally good, and Denver's offense unnaturally bad. The Raiders' defense is also ranked #5 right now, which seems odd.
#68: That doesn't make any sense. Why can there not be an error in the collection of the data used to create these stats before week 5? As Aaron noted (and Archimedes Owl repeated), there was a parsing error that caused this game's data to not make it to Quick Reads. It is not impossible that something went wrong even after that error was corrected.
Look at the team offense page. 7th last week, 28th this week? 29th in rush offense with Henry leading the league in yards? Look at team defense. 4th in rush defense after giving up 6.7 YPC to Lamont Jordan?
#67: The points about the quality of the Raiders and Bills defenses are well made, but don't affect VOA. When the defense adjustments come in around week 5 and we see DVOA, the Broncos offense should look better.
66: What KC did was play against Devin Hester.
Ok, it wasn't just his TD return. The Bears had another 70 yards in return yardage on 4 other returned punts and a 42 yard punt by the Chiefs that went 8 yards deep into the end zone, yielding a net of about 22 yards per punt on 8 punts for the Chiefs. Ouch. Add in a kickoff out of bounds, a blocked FG, and one Bears punt where KC had 3 penalties on the return, and mostly bad returns by KC, and it was a pretty wretched day for KC's special teams. KC also fired their kicker after Week 1 after a bad kicking game that week.
Seattle's rushing offense has apparently fallen off the radar, which should come as no surprise given the Shaun Alexander situation we all talked about prior to him signing his monster contract. I didn't want to believe it but I'm starting to wonder.
On the other hand, I'm not really sold on the Seattle offensive line, either, especially on the right side.
Yards per carry is a particularly bad indicator of success for games like Denver-Oakland (see 33, 20, 19, and 13 for evidence - the four longest runs during the game).
However, it looks to my untrained eye as if Oakland's success rate on running plays was .394 (13 for 33), and that does seem to suggest that Denver's run defense was not fantastic in that game.
#68:
I don't know what you mean. I am suggesting that there was some sort of error in calculation DVOA based on the splits that Tracy brought up in which ever running back and the QB had positive DVOAs in passing and rushing, but the team has a negative DVOA.
The fact that Denver has a way better rushing VOA than would seem likely after their two performances in which they now rank 30th in yards per carry allowed while ranking fourth in defensive VOA against the run.
Like Tracy said, for Denver to go from ~16.5 DVOA to -34.5 would mean that Denver had an exceptionally terrible offensive game against Oakland. You'd expect that Denver must have at least had a -40 VOA performance based off that much of a change.
But that doesn't really jive with the fact that Denver averaged 40+ yards per drive against Oakland and did it without many big plays meaning they were able to sustain some drives.
Now, I can understand that if they were terrible on first and second down, but dominated third down, they could still have a somewhat lower ranking than expected while maintaining long drives, but not on the tune of a -40 VOA performance.
It would interest me to see what Denver and Oakland's VOA for this particular game actually was. Since I didn't get to check it out in quick reads.
If none of the data after the lightning storm was collected, than Denver and Oakland's rating would be about the same as they were last week, as VOA is a per play stat. ON the other hand, if the data got reversed and Denver's data was credited to Oakland and vice versa, that would explain the apparent discrepancy in their respective VOAs. Of course, that would mean Cutler and not McCown had a -17.5 PAR rating for the week, and that seems rather unlikely.
Hey. I've got the data from after the lightning storm now. That's not the issue. (It was the reason why I couldn't do the game in Quick Reads, but we figured out the issue last night.) Don't have time now to figure out all the specifics about Denver. Things sort themselves out after a few weeks.
Andrew,
Those few factors may be enough to explain the difference solely because it's a small data set