RSS Feed
DVOA Analysis
Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season
16 Oct 2007
Week 6 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
Here are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through six 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 DVOA are adjusted for opponent and consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season.
Opponent adjustments are currently set at 60% and will increase each week until they are full strength after Week 10.
DAVE is an early-season formula that combines early-season performance with our preseason projection to get a more accurate picture of how well teams will play over the course of the entire season. (DAVE stands for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.") In this week's DAVE ratings, for teams with six games, the preseason projection counts for 19 percent, and the current DVOA counts for 81 percent. For teams with five games, the split is 27/73. In addition, the weight of Weeks 1-3 has been lowered slightly.
To save people some time, we request that you 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 | 62.8% | 1 | 56.2% | 1 | 66.7% | 6-0 | 40.5% | 2 | -19.3% | 4 | 3.0% | 9 |
| 2 | IND | 53.0% | 2 | 45.2% | 2 | 54.6% | 5-0 | 50.2% | 1 | -8.6% | 8 | -5.8% | 28 |
| 3 | PIT | 36.9% | 3 | 28.8% | 3 | 49.8% | 4-1 | 10.8% | 8 | -25.9% | 1 | 0.2% | 18 |
| 4 | DAL | 34.9% | 4 | 25.3% | 4 | 35.7% | 5-1 | 26.3% | 3 | -9.5% | 7 | -1.0% | 20 |
| 5 | TB | 28.7% | 5 | 25.3% | 5 | 26.5% | 4-2 | 18.1% | 4 | -7.5% | 11 | 3.1% | 8 |
| 6 | GB | 19.1% | 6 | 15.5% | 8 | 17.7% | 5-1 | 9.3% | 9 | -9.6% | 6 | 0.2% | 17 |
| 7 | JAC | 17.9% | 10 | 20.7% | 6 | 20.2% | 4-1 | 17.4% | 5 | 0.6% | 14 | 1.1% | 14 |
| 8 | BAL | 15.8% | 8 | 15.3% | 9 | 26.4% | 4-2 | -10.3% | 25 | -18.3% | 5 | 7.8% | 4 |
| 9 | WAS | 15.8% | 7 | 15.6% | 7 | 15.0% | 3-2 | -8.5% | 24 | -22.7% | 3 | 1.5% | 13 |
| 10 | TEN | 14.3% | 9 | 9.7% | 13 | 4.0% | 3-2 | -3.5% | 20 | -23.5% | 2 | -5.8% | 27 |
| 11 | PHI | 11.6% | 11 | 12.8% | 10 | 14.5% | 2-3 | 7.9% | 11 | -8.6% | 9 | -4.9% | 23 |
| 12 | NYG | 10.8% | 15 | 10.2% | 11 | 5.6% | 4-2 | 14.1% | 6 | -2.2% | 13 | -5.5% | 26 |
| 13 | SD | 7.8% | 17 | 10.2% | 12 | 6.7% | 3-3 | 7.9% | 10 | 2.0% | 16 | 1.9% | 12 |
| 14 | SEA | 4.1% | 12 | 2.7% | 14 | 5.9% | 3-3 | 2.2% | 15 | 0.9% | 15 | 2.9% | 10 |
| 15 | MIN | 3.7% | 14 | 0.8% | 15 | 10.2% | 2-3 | -2.7% | 18 | -4.1% | 12 | 2.4% | 11 |
| 16 | HOU | -0.9% | 16 | -5.8% | 17 | -4.8% | 3-3 | -3.4% | 19 | 7.1% | 20 | 9.7% | 1 |
| 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 | ARI | -3.4% | 13 | -6.3% | 19 | 4.3% | 3-3 | 0.6% | 16 | 4.6% | 18 | 0.6% | 15 |
| 18 | CLE | -4.2% | 19 | -3.5% | 16 | -10.1% | 3-3 | 5.4% | 12 | 16.9% | 30 | 7.4% | 5 |
| 19 | CIN | -6.5% | 18 | -6.8% | 20 | -10.3% | 1-4 | 11.3% | 7 | 7.7% | 21 | -10.1% | 30 |
| 20 | CAR | -10.7% | 26 | -6.1% | 18 | 2.3% | 4-2 | -0.7% | 17 | 4.8% | 19 | -5.2% | 25 |
| 21 | KC | -12.1% | 25 | -13.1% | 21 | -7.7% | 3-3 | -14.7% | 28 | -7.6% | 10 | -5.0% | 24 |
| 22 | BUF | -19.2% | 23 | -14.2% | 22 | -25.5% | 1-4 | -19.9% | 29 | 8.7% | 22 | 9.3% | 2 |
| 23 | DET | -20.8% | 22 | -19.9% | 25 | -13.6% | 3-2 | -7.1% | 21 | 9.3% | 24 | -4.4% | 22 |
| 24 | DEN | -21.3% | 24 | -20.1% | 26 | -21.3% | 2-3 | 3.8% | 13 | 12.9% | 28 | -12.1% | 32 |
| 25 | ATL | -21.6% | 21 | -17.1% | 23 | -21.6% | 1-5 | -8.5% | 23 | 9.2% | 23 | -3.9% | 21 |
| 26 | MIA | -22.0% | 20 | -21.3% | 27 | -21.3% | 0-6 | 2.6% | 14 | 24.8% | 31 | 0.2% | 19 |
| 27 | CHI | -24.0% | 28 | -18.6% | 24 | -26.8% | 2-4 | -29.8% | 31 | 2.5% | 17 | 8.3% | 3 |
| 28 | NO | -31.1% | 31 | -24.1% | 28 | -43.5% | 1-4 | -12.4% | 26 | 12.2% | 27 | -6.5% | 29 |
| 29 | STL | -31.8% | 29 | -29.8% | 30 | -34.8% | 0-6 | -22.3% | 30 | 10.0% | 25 | 0.5% | 16 |
| 30 | NYJ | -33.8% | 30 | -24.8% | 29 | -33.9% | 1-5 | -8.5% | 22 | 28.6% | 32 | 3.2% | 7 |
| 31 | OAK | -37.7% | 27 | -31.8% | 31 | -26.5% | 2-3 | -13.5% | 27 | 14.1% | 29 | -10.1% | 31 |
| 32 | SF | -45.7% | 32 | -39.3% | 32 | -39.7% | 2-3 | -38.2% | 32 | 10.9% | 26 | 3.4% | 6 |
- ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
- PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road. (Note: This is based on 2007 performance only. In other words, DVOA, not DAVE.)
- VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance. Teams are ranked from least consistent (#1, highest variance) to most consistent (#32, smallest variance).
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 1 | NE | 62.8% | 6-0 | 5.3 | 2 | -3.5% | 21 | 4.7% | 10 | 3.8% | 30 |
| 2 | IND | 53.0% | 5-0 | 6.0 | 1 | -1.7% | 19 | 5.4% | 9 | 8.6% | 20 |
| 3 | PIT | 36.9% | 4-1 | 3.8 | 9 | -11.4% | 31 | -1.4% | 17 | 36.8% | 1 |
| 4 | DAL | 34.9% | 5-1 | 4.4 | 3 | -3.9% | 23 | 2.3% | 14 | 10.6% | 18 |
| 5 | TB | 28.7% | 4-2 | 4.3 | 4 | -0.3% | 17 | -12.2% | 30 | 25.5% | 4 |
| 6 | GB | 19.1% | 5-1 | 4.1 | 5 | 4.3% | 10 | -14.1% | 31 | 4.2% | 29 |
| 7 | JAC | 17.9% | 4-1 | 3.9 | 6 | -6.9% | 27 | 9.4% | 5 | 5.5% | 26 |
| 8 | BAL | 15.8% | 4-2 | 3.7 | 10 | -20.9% | 32 | 15.0% | 1 | 4.2% | 28 |
| 9 | WAS | 15.8% | 3-2 | 3.5 | 11 | -0.2% | 15 | 10.7% | 3 | 8.4% | 21 |
| 10 | TEN | 14.3% | 3-2 | 3.8 | 8 | 7.8% | 6 | -4.5% | 20 | 2.6% | 31 |
| 11 | PHI | 11.6% | 2-3 | 3.9 | 7 | -1.5% | 18 | 7.1% | 7 | 14.3% | 12 |
| 12 | NYG | 10.8% | 4-2 | 3.5 | 12 | 4.3% | 9 | -0.3% | 16 | 12.8% | 13 |
| 13 | SD | 7.8% | 3-3 | 3.3 | 13 | -2.2% | 20 | 1.2% | 15 | 26.7% | 3 |
| 14 | SEA | 4.1% | 3-3 | 3.0 | 18 | -3.5% | 22 | -14.6% | 32 | 21.6% | 5 |
| 15 | MIN | 3.7% | 2-3 | 3.2 | 14 | -9.9% | 28 | -5.0% | 23 | 6.3% | 24 |
| 16 | HOU | -0.9% | 3-3 | 2.8 | 19 | 0.7% | 14 | 4.2% | 13 | 10.1% | 19 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 17 | ARI | -3.4% | 3-3 | 2.6 | 22 | -5.2% | 26 | -11.3% | 29 | 31.6% | 2 |
| 18 | CLE | -4.2% | 3-3 | 3.2 | 16 | 8.2% | 5 | -8.4% | 27 | 12.8% | 14 |
| 19 | CIN | -6.5% | 1-4 | 3.0 | 17 | 11.1% | 3 | -5.6% | 24 | 1.4% | 32 |
| 20 | CAR | -10.7% | 4-2 | 2.8 | 20 | -10.0% | 29 | 7.4% | 6 | 19.4% | 8 |
| 21 | KC | -12.1% | 3-3 | 3.2 | 15 | -0.3% | 16 | -7.8% | 26 | 16.0% | 11 |
| 22 | BUF | -19.2% | 1-4 | 2.3 | 23 | 13.2% | 2 | 4.6% | 11 | 11.7% | 16 |
| 23 | DET | -20.8% | 3-2 | 2.7 | 21 | -5.1% | 25 | 6.3% | 8 | 17.4% | 10 |
| 24 | DEN | -21.3% | 2-3 | 2.0 | 24 | 3.6% | 11 | -2.6% | 18 | 20.0% | 7 |
| 25 | ATL | -21.6% | 1-5 | 2.0 | 25 | 5.9% | 7 | -3.9% | 19 | 5.5% | 27 |
| 26 | MIA | -22.0% | 0-6 | 1.9 | 26 | -4.3% | 24 | 12.2% | 2 | 8.3% | 23 |
| 27 | CHI | -24.0% | 2-4 | 1.8 | 27 | 5.4% | 8 | -4.6% | 21 | 11.3% | 17 |
| 28 | NO | -31.1% | 1-4 | 1.6 | 28 | 14.9% | 1 | -10.1% | 28 | 8.3% | 22 |
| 29 | STL | -31.8% | 0-6 | 1.5 | 29 | 3.3% | 13 | -4.8% | 22 | 19.1% | 9 |
| 30 | NYJ | -33.8% | 1-5 | 1.3 | 30 | 10.0% | 4 | 10.1% | 4 | 5.7% | 25 |
| 31 | OAK | -37.7% | 2-3 | 0.9 | 32 | -10.1% | 30 | 4.5% | 12 | 21.1% | 6 |
| 32 | SF | -45.7% | 2-3 | 1.0 | 31 | 3.6% | 12 | -6.2% | 25 | 12.4% | 15 |
Best DVOA Ever Watch
| BEST TOTAL DVOA | BEST OFFENSIVE DVOA | ||||||||||
| AFTER 6 WEEKS | AFTER 6 GAMES | AFTER 6 WEEKS | AFTER 6 GAMES | ||||||||
| YEAR | TEAM | DVOA | YEAR | TEAM | DVOA | YEAR | TEAM | DVOA | YEAR | TEAM | DVOA |
| 1999 | STL | 68.7% | 1999 | STL | 64.8% | 2000 | STL | 51.0% | 2000 | STL | 53.6% |
| 1996 | GB | 63.9% | 1996 | GB | 63.9% | 2007 | IND | 50.2% | 2007 | NE | 40.5% |
| 2007 | NE | 62.8% | 2007 | NE | 62.8% | 1999 | WAS | 41.3% | 2000 | IND | 40.3% |
| 2007 | IND | 53.0% | 2001 | STL | 51.4% | 2007 | NE | 40.5% | 1999 | WAS | 39.1% |
| 2001 | STL | 51.4% | 1998 | DEN | 47.8% | 1998 | DEN | 36.5% | 2004 | IND | 38.6% |
| 1998 | DEN | 47.8% | 2006 | CHI | 46.7% | 2004 | MIN | 36.1% | 1998 | DEN | 36.5% |
| 2006 | SD | 47.3% | 2000 | MIA | 43.5% | 1999 | STL | 35.3% | 1999 | STL | 36.1% |
| 2006 | CHI | 46.7% | 2005 | IND | 43.0% | 2001 | STL | 34.9% | 2001 | STL | 34.9% |
| 2004 | PHI | 44.6% | 2006 | PHI | 39.9% | 1998 | SF | 34.2% | 2005 | SEA | 33.9% |
| 2000 | MIA | 43.5% | 1999 | JAC | 39.3% | 2000 | IND | 34.2% | 2005 | SD | 31.8% |
I apologize for the lack of commentary today, but I need to get all the numbers online and then go catch a flight home from L.A. to Boston. I promise there will be more commentary on FO next week. (Hey, the good news is, you get the ratings earlier this week because I'm not waiting to write commentary...)
For (short) comments on every team, look for DVOA on AOL, every Wednesday. (This will be linked on the FO Goes Mainstream page.)
Individual stats pages, offensive line, and defensive front seven are all updated. Each of these other pages will be updated through Week 6 later today or tonight:
- DVOA Premium Database (UPDATED!)
- Loser League (UPDATED!)
- Playoff Odds Report (UPDATED!)
Any chance for an answer on what the squib kickoffs do to the Bears ST DVOA?
I am really surprised at the fact that STL is not the worst team right now in DVOA. I would take the Raiders and Jets in a heartbeat...
OK raise your hand if in the preseason you had Dave Garrard, Derek Anderson and Jeff Garcia in the top-5 DPAR quarterbacks 6 weeks in.
Am I correct that the Pats Offensive DVOA went down after scoring 48 points? Who says this is a Pats homer site?
Anyone care to explain how the Patriots have 5.3 estimated wins through 6 games while the Colts have 6 estimated wins through 5 games?
Playoff Odds are from last week.
Surprisingly little movement, especially at the top.
One thing I like about the DVOA ratings is the stability in the rankings. Tennessee (ranked #9 last week) fell to a team ranked 5th. There is a temptation in "power polls" and other subjective rankings to drop ANY team ANY time they lose. If the 9th-ranked team loses a close game to the 5th-ranked team, well... that means those teams were accurately ranked about 5 spots apart.
How are the Bengals not ranked #32? Geez, and with all the smack I talked about them beating up on KC...
[eats hat]
#6: Note the list of features at the bottom of the article, headed by the title "Each of these other pages will be updated through Week 6 later today or tonight". When "Playoff odds report" says "updated" next to it, then it will be the Week 6 Playoff Odds report.
Am I correct that the Pats Offensive DVOA went down after scoring 48 points? Who says this is a Pats homer site?
Opponent adjustments get stronger week-to-week in the beginning of the season. Even if the Patriots play exactly as well as they have up to this point in the season, their DVOA will continue to decline as long as the majority of their opponents play like .500-or-below teams.
On the other hand, San Diego's rebound could bring it back up. Cleveland, too, though they're still not doing much to pad offensive DVOA for their opponents.
Do you really think if CIN played the Jets, Rams, Niners or Raiders they would lose on a neutral site?
Anyone care to explain how the Patriots have 5.3 estimated wins through 6 games while the Colts have 6 estimated wins through 5 games?
Estimated wins are calculated as if all teams have played 6 games.
As a Colts fan, I apologize to those of you who are sick of hearing about the Colts and Patriots by now.
Raiderjoe is not going to be pleased with the rankings for the Raiders.
I do like that DAVE didn't freak out about Philly, which is now 2-3 and still fairly likely to make the playoffs.
"Anyone care to explain how the Patriots have 5.3 estimated wins through 6 games while the Colts have 6 estimated wins through 5 games?"
A fairness adjustment considering the Pats have the first round pick of the 32nd ranked DVOA/DAVE team?
I'm not sure I understand the Pats/Colts estimated wins.
The pats are scoring more points per game, giving up less points per game, have a higher DVOA, and play an easier schedule, and yet have less estimated wins? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I think Aaron said there was something flukey about the Patriots' estimated wins because they don't yet have a rating for close games, because they haven't played any.
Wow. The Titans have mostly terrible skill position players:
Player DPAR RK DVOA RK
10-V.Young -2.9 34 -18.6% 32
29-C.Brown 12.5 7 30.8% 7
25-L.White -1.2 44 -17.2% 42
86-R.Williams 5.2 38 21.4% 21
81-B.Jones 4.7 42 18.7% 26
83-E.Moulds 1.5 54 -6.1% 52
80-B.Scaife -1.4 33 -23.2% 32
Chris Brown is having a fantastic year, and yet LenDale White has 30! more carries. Vince Young is terrible, and Bo Scaife, his #1 target, is the worst starting TE in the leage
The pats are scoring more points per game, giving up less points per game, have a higher DVOA, and play an easier schedule, and yet have less estimated wins? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Estimated wins heavily weights performance in close games. The Pats haven't been in any close games.
16: Estimated wins are calculated based on the team playing an average schedule, so the Pats easier future schedule doesn't come into effect. My guess is what's hurting their ranking most is their red zone defense.
#16: I think Aaron talked about this last week or the week before. One of the statistics used for estimated wins is performance in the 4th quarter of close games. Since NE has yet to play a game that was close in the 4th quarter, they get a big fat 0 for that stat and so their estimated wins number is artificially low.
The Madden Curse has defeated Vince Young. None shall challenge the supremacy of the Madden Curse.
I saw NE has the 10th hardest schedule remaining and went to nfl.com to see who they played.
I noticed their week 17 game. At the Giants. Saturday night. Could be quite a matchup, potentially for the Pats to become the first 16-0 regular season time. Probably significant playoff game for Giants. Brady vs. Manning the Younger. The Belichick Film Company is back in the Meadowlands. Nice game for national TV, right?
On NFL Network.
17/19: Both the Cleveland and Dallas games have been close at some point in the second half, although admittedly not for long. So I think we know a little about how the Patriots will respond in those situations.
" and Bo Scaife, his #1 target, is the worst starting TE in the leage"
A lot of Bo Scaife being the "worst starting TE in the league" is that his QB is one of the worst pure passers in the league.
After watching a couple Titans games, I think Roydelle Williams is actually REALLY good. He caught a LOT of balls he had no business getting to.
24.
Yeah, I agree. The patriots haven't had no "close game time".. they just blow people away when its close.
5) "Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week." I don't know why, but there it is.
From previous commentary, the Pats do not show well in 2 of the 3 categories used to compute estimated wins: red zone defense, where they've been fairly awful, and close and late, where they haven't had any chances.
Ravens schedule so far: 32nd.
Ravens schedule rest of season: 1st.
That has to be somewhat discouraging for Ravens' fans.
I'm guessing that Estimated Wins looks heavily at red zone performance. That's been the Patriots weakest aspect this season...they've been horrible on offense in the red zone until recently, and are only now being average. And they've only been slightly better on defense. Of course, their defense is playing pretty decently between the 20's, so other teams aren't getting many red zone opportunities, and they're scoring a bajillion points on big plays, so they're blowing people out despite their pedestrian red zone performance. But estimated wins probably isn't built to take that into account...
So, how long until the FOMBC hits Carolina fans? They're bound to start complaining about being 4-2 and yet ranked way behind a slew of 3-3 and 3-2 teams, not to mention two teams with losing records (Philly and Cincy).
30: I think Carolina fans are going to realize that when your starting QB is 44, it's hard to complain about your team being ranked too low.
Oh great. Not looking forward to this coming week. My wife's team is #3 DVOA, and mine is #24, and their playing each other. Looks like a repeat of the '05 AFC championship game, when her grandma called me at halftime and started rubbing it in.
Looking at #31 Raiders and #32 49ers, you can see why NFL games on TV in the Bay Area are virturally unwatchable. The best we can hope for is a Raiders blackout.
The last 2 weeks when the NFL game couldn't be shown on Fox due to contractual agreements, we got *rodeo* on our TVs. And that's when SF had a *bye*.
See you at the bar,
Erik
My favorite ridiculous New England stat
If the Patriots win the rest of their games by an average of 34-7, they'd set both the record for most points scored in a season and fewest points given up in a season. This isn't likely to happen (the defense hasn't been good enough for that), but just the fact that it isn't totally implausible 6 games into the season gives a feel for ho good the Patriots are.
Surprised that no one points out the historic magnitude of the tables above. Sam #3 gets close with his QB musings....
Look at Jax's offensive and defensive rankings. Whoda thunk it? I assume when the first week fades in importance, the D ranking will climb a bit, but will it ever overtake their mighty O?
Repeat these phrases now, because their shelf life is limited: Jack Del Rio, offensive genius! Jags defense: meh!
Also, who wrote in the Fox commentary (Aaron?) the great line about "Don't let the Reebok suit fool you, Del Rio knew what he was doing (with Garrard)." Very good and (unfortunately) true. This Colt fan wants Leftwich back! Pronto!
The Vikings' defense ranking fell about what I thought it would after their worst performance of the season by far, and hopefully it is an aberration, although I'm curious as to what the Bears' offensive DVOA will be like after 10 games with Griese as qb, compared to the last 10 games of Horribillus Rex.
On the other hand, if you had told me after week 2 that the Vikings would have a top 20 offense after week six, I would have suspected intoxication. They may exceed my six win projection yet, thanks to a rookie. It is a little fustrating to be 2.5 games behind in the divisional standings, but only a little more than one game behind in estimated wins. I wonder if teams with better qb play more often exceed their estimated wins, and if teams with bad qb play more often fall short of estimated wins; in other words, could estimated win projections be improved by weighting projected qb play more heavily. I'm sure Aaron is constantly tweaking the models, to see if projections improve, and it would interesting to see what he has tried.
Back to the Bears, I guess the not wholly unexpected defensive performance variance has taken place.
More Jax oddness - whoulda thunk before the season that the offense would be very good and the defence dead average? And it's freaky beyond words to see them down in the mid-20s for variance. It's like I don't even know them any more...
Denver's offensive variance is ranked #32;
their defensive variance is ranked #1.
Re: 28
The Ravens look like they will struggle offensively all year. The defense is good but not so good that it will be able to keep non-Rams teams to single digit points. They have to play the top three teams (DVOA) four times over the balance of the year. Hard to see them winning any of those games barring catastophic injury. One more loss in any of their other six games probably knocks them out of the playoffs. Tough road.
I'm going to sound like the President of the Adrian Peterson Fan Club, but I actually think the Vikings have a chance to give the Cowboys a pretty tough time this Sunday. I think there are some things the Vikings can do with match-ups if they put Peterson and Chester Taylor on the field at the same time which will cause problems, especially if the Vikings receivers can catch the ball like Division I-AA players. The Vikings defense will have to play better than they did on a few blown coverages against the Bears, however.
Man, The Show was pretty damn good. For all of NE's and IND's 2007 asskicking, they stilll haven't topped the 1999 Rams.
Well, I guess there really isn't that huge of a difference between the two conferences (once you get past the top 3 anyway). The top 3 AFC teams are as a whole ridiculous. But once you get past that, it looks like the AFC is about 4% DVOA better. That's not nearly as big as most of the AFC fanboys would like us to believe.
Click my name for the nifty little chart.
#14
I agree that the formula is good because it doesn't over exaggerate close losses to good teams (or vice-versa). However, I think philly has a tough road to the playoffs. Not so much because the NFC has good competition, but because their in the east, which has a lot to contend with.
They would probably win the south or west. Looks like we may see 3 NFC east teams in the playoffs again (unless TB/Car has something to say about that)
Subjectively, the top three teams on this list just seem much better than the rest (I'm giving the Steelers a mulligan on the Arizona game). Teams 4-13 seem pretty close (closer than the current numbers indicate). But maybe my Garcia bias is just refusing to let me believe that TB is really better than SD/PHI/etc.
I don't exactly understand why there seems to be so much talk about how great this NE team is. Through six weeks they rank 3rd of all teams in the DVOA era. I don't recall to many writers/commentators referring to the other two teams ranked ahead of them (StL 99 and GB 96) as all time great teams. I doubt they'd get a nod in the top ten teams of the last 30 years.
From an historical perspective being the 3rd best team in the last 11 years, isn't particularly impressive.
45.
You don't remember the "Greatest Show on Turf" being called historically great?
I'm actually curious about #1's question as well.
I think there may be a problem with the calcs. I was checking loser league totals and Rob Bironas (1 PAT and 1 FG) is listed as having 6 points. ?? Wes Welker 124 yards, 2 TDS is listed as having 1 point. ??
Is this a problem with the Loser League scripts or is there some undercurrent that raises concerns with the data from which DVOA is derived?
Re: 40
It's pretty common for coaches (and fans) to talk about plays with two RBs on the field, but I don't really recall it ever producing anything great. The Saints talked a lot about this last year but it didn't really seem to create the mismatches they were hoping for. Opposing DCs seem to have the answer for this.
Will - I didn't think the Vikings played to badly on defence up until the incredible meltdown in the last 3 minutes. A McCauley catch of an easy INT or a 1st down out of the offence out of either of the two possessions they had in the last 4 minutes and they would have held the Bears to about 320 yards.
Regarding the offence - in the last 3 games the passing game has had huge opportunities because teams are so overplaying the run. The WR's and AB's are just blowing plays (and the ref in the KC game).
Against KC - Holcomb misses Ferguson for an easy TD. Ref steals a TD from Shiancoe.
GB - Holcomb misses Rice wide open for 50+ pass.
Chic - Rice x 2 and Williamson drop slant passes perfectly thrown with big YAC available. Jackson misses wide open pass to the FB for a walk in 40+ yard TD.
This offence is starting to look semi dangerous because Peterson is unreal and the line is starting to play very well.
The lack of a pass rush is really starting to haunt the defence though.
Anybody know off-hand how frequently Bush and McCallister were on the field at the same time last year?
48
THere have been a couple of issues with cutting and pasting this year... I wouldn't be surprised if this was another.... as well as Sage Rosenfels ridiculous DPAR for a drive in garbage time.
45 - The reason is because you have to go back to the 1968 Cowboys to find a team that started 6-0 and had as large an average margin of victory as the Pats through six games. That's pretty impressive.
Jim m, the Vikings' defense played o.k. except for three plays, but it only takes three lousy plays to ruin a defensive performance. Like I said, I hope it is an aberration, and you are correct; Tavaris Jackson hitting on a big pass early on, while the Cowboys are crowding the box, would be an immense help.
Poor Miami fans, all those years with good defense and poor offense. This year they have an average offense but awful defense. Not to mention the 2nd toughest schedule going forward.
48: Loser league hasn't been updated yet.
46. Rich, I recall a great deal of talk about the Greatest Show on Turf, but the team had clear deficiencies that almost tripped it up in the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl. I also remember the gross exaggeration of Kurt Warner's accomplishments.
Here's another chart. This time it's grouped by division.
I'd venture a guess that the Pats may also currently have the record for largest gap between them and the rest of their division. Yikes.
It's also kinda weird (although not particularly interesting or informative) that the division leaders in both conferences follow the same geographic pattern (East-South-North-West).
Will - I'm not a big fan of Dwight Smith - I know he rated out the weakest of the 4 secondary starters last year. Curious as to your take. I think he is a big liability back there.
Re 48:
Loser League isn't updated for week 6 yet.
re:57
Like What?
They had the best offense in the league, the 3rd best defense, and 9th best special teams. They got "tripped up" because theres a huge element of luck in football.
"Well, I guess there really isn’t that huge of a difference between the two conferences (once you get past the top 3 anyway). The top 3 AFC teams are as a whole ridiculous. But once you get past that, it looks like the AFC is about 4% DVOA better. That’s not nearly as big as most of the AFC fanboys would like us to believe.
Click my name for the nifty little chart."
So, wait, you get rid of 3 really awesome teams, and the AFC is STILL better? It think you just made the opposite of the point you were trying to make.
#1, #47
Me three. I would think that because they consider kickoff distance a 'hidden factor'-because most return teams have no control over it- it would make the Bears return DVOA look less dominant than it is.
Jim, Smith, I'd say, is a very, very, poor man's Roy Williams. He is strong and physical, but has very pronounced weakenesses in coverage, especially deep coverage. I was surprised that he was matched up on Hester at the end of the game.
I don't understand how the Steelers variance is so much higher than say, the Cowboys, for example. Steelers have had four pretty dominant performances and one bad one, whereas the Cowboys have had four dominant, one this past week that I take it was a pretty good but losing effort, and one horrendous game that they still happened to win. My intuition tells me this seems wrong, but obviously my intuition is not in line with the numbers here.
Re: 63
I submitted this question to 'ask the outsiders' after someone raised it last week (I can't recall who posted it originally). I haven't gotten a response yet.
Fox Sports is reporting that the Chargers just traded their second rounder for Chris Chambers. This pick-up is going to be WAY over-rated by the talking heads. Chambers has a horrible catch percentage and the Outsiders had an article about how catch percentage is usually situation-independent.
Most likely, this means that Eric Parker will be IR'd for the year to open a roster spot. I, and the stats here, like Parker a lot and I think the Chargers offense would have been greatly benefited by his return.
Luckily, the Chargers have a bye next week so they'll have a little extra time to integrate him into the offense.
67: They better quarantine him to make sure he doesn't infect San Deigo with the suck virus like McMichaels did to St Louis.
#55 - Miami's future difficulty is entirely a result of still having to play the Patriots - twice. Take those two games out, and they have an average schedule.
62 - That's what I was thinking. You take away the top 3 teams in the AFC and it still beats everybody else in the NFC by 4%. I guess we are just fanboys though, so what do we know?
#18, We're absolutely horrible on Offense. And it's just that our skill position players... well.. are not that great. LenDale White is making our Offensive line look absolutely horrible, becuase he can't hit the hole fast enough. If we had a better RB (or at least ran Chris Brown more often), I'd think that we'd have a higher offensive DVOA/DPAR
#22 - I wouldn't know. Vince was already a sub-par (at best) passer to begin with, so not so sure if the Madden curse has hit yet =P
#25 - I agree fully. Roydell Williams seems to make at least one of those "Highlight of the Night" worthy catches every game. But of course, since we don't have much of a passing game, he doesn't get to showcase his skills that often.
65: In Dallas' game against Buffalo, their offense was horrible, but their defense was really good, but with the Pittsburgh game against Arizona, Pittsburgh was bad on both sides, so they had twice as much variance as Dallas in that one game did.
71. R. Williams
That ball over the middle, maybe 3rd quarter, that was about 6 feet over his head (maybe a 15 yard gain or so) really impressed me. Not many guys even get their hands on that ball, let alone catch it.
72 - understood. What does variance measure, however? Variance between best and worst when compared one on one, or variance week to week (as the definition suggests)? If the latter how do 4 good + 1 bad = highest variance?
69 - Miami also still has the Giants, the Eagles, the Steelers, and the Ravens -- all currently top 12 DVOA. If their remaining schedule minus the Patriots is average, isn't that only because the other four games are against the Bills twice, the Jets, and the Bengals?
re:72
B, everyone's defense is really good against buffalo.
Will - Given the strength of the Minnesota run stopping ability of the front 7 I would think getting the 4-6 best cover guys in the defensive backfield would be of paramount importance. I'm hoping to see a change there but I have no idea if anyone else on the roster would provide better coverage skills.
Re: 62 & 70
Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? 4/5ths of the AFC are slightly better than 4/5th of the NFC. That clearly indicates that the AFC is by far the superior conference. [/sarcasm]
Re: 77
It wasn't clear from the earlier posts that you were also not including the top three NFC teams in the comparison. I figured that was what you must have done (looking at the chart) but I can understand why people would have been confused by the text.
re: 66
It was me last week as well, I thought it might have gotten lost in the great Rich Conley-Will Allen death match. Hopefully someone will see it at number 1.
Re 67:
Suckers!!
So much for AJ Smith being a personnel guru, huh?
77 - Are you just trying to live up to your name? [serious question]
Are you subtracting out Dallas, GB, and TB as well? If so, that was not clear from your description back in 42. ("The top 3 AFC teams are as a whole ridiculous. But once you get past that, it looks like the AFC is about 4% DVOA better.")
Either way, why is it fair to say that after subtracting the best three teams thus far (either from one conference or from both) the conferences are actually pretty equal?
I wasn't (and I don't think fnor was) suggesting that your 4% differential made the AFC "by far the superior conference." But when you do not drop out the high and low scores like some kind of figure skating judge, it looks like the AFC thus far is better both at the top end of the range and on average from top to to bottom.
Right?
Re: 78
I didn't even think about that. If that's the case, I should have been more clear earlier.
To reiterate, teams 4-16 in the AFC are about 4% DVOA better than their counterparts 4-16 in the NFC. My original point was that while everyone likes to crow about how piss-poor the NFC is in comparison to the AFC, that comparison is really only valid for the very top of the conferences. The vast majority of the two conferences are pretty much evenly matched (although still slightly tilted in the AFC's favor).
Re: 80
Does Norv have some history with Chambers? It will be interesting to see if his FO metrics remain as poor in a different system/role.
79: I think I can answer your question. Squib kicks aren't recorded differently in the pbp, so the DVOA formula can't adjust for them, but the game charting project is noting squib kicks, so perhaps that will be used in the final analysis of Chicago's special teams. The data doesn't come in fast enough for it to be ready by Tuesday, though.
My original point was that while everyone likes to crow about how piss-poor the NFC is in comparison to the AFC, that comparison is really only valid for the very top of the conferences.
But the difference at the top is friggin' gigantic.
Meaning the oddds are very good that:
1. One of the AFC big powers wins the AFC Championship, and
2. That team then wins the Superbowl.
Re: 81
You're right. Now that I go back and re-read my original comment, I could have been more clear. That sentence you quoted probably should have been "The top 3 AFC teams are, as a whole, ridiculous. But once you get past the top 3, it looks like the AFC is only about 4% DVOA better."
Re 68 LOL
Re 83 - I think the Cameron/Turner offenses are pretty much the same, so it makes sense for the Chargers from that standpoint.
83: Norv was the Dolphins OC in 2002-2003, and Chambers was on the team then.
83 - From Chargers.com press release (link in my name):
The Chargers believe the 5-11, 210 pound receiver can contribute immediately due to his knowledge of the team’s offense. In addition to working with Turner in the past, Chambers has spent the last six months working in Cam Cameron’s offense, the same system that Turner runs and the same one that is still in place from Cameron’s tenure as the Bolts’ offensive coordinator.
"The bonus for us is that he’s familiar with the system," Turner said. "It should be a quick and easy adjustment for him. We expect him to come in and be productive right away."
Re: 85
But the difference at the top is gigantic regardless of conference. NE and Indy are waaay ahead of everyone else (Pittsburgh and Dallas are basically even).
I'm not trying to suggest that the NFC has just a good of a chance at winning the SuperBowl and the AFC. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of the two conferences are basically even. The AFC is clearly the better conference, but most of that is due to 2 teams.
I'm just sick of everyone around here (who I hold to much higher standards) blindly following the general perception of the relative strengths of the two conferences.
re: 28, 39
I think the Ravens difficult schedule is problematic, but all their best players on offense are injured right now (on offense: Ogden, Terry, Heap, and Clayton is nursing a high ankle sprain). They have a OT from the practice squad playing TE for crying out lout.
All of the previously mentioned players (with the possible exception of Ogden) including T. Pryce are locks to be fully recovered after the bye, if they can just get by Buffalo next sunday they should be in good shape at 5-2. Of course no team is immune from injuries, but if they do get healthy (a questionable if), they should be pretty good.
If an injury ravaged team can post a 15.8% DVOA, they have a chance to become legit if they're close to full health. A 5-4 record after the bye should get them into the playoffs: only one team each will come out the AFC east and west, and the AFC south has three good teams which should beat up on each other.
What will be interesting is if the Pats have a typical performance against the Dolphins (say 34-14) and the Colts win reasonably in Jax (say, 27-17), the Colts might actually pass the Pats in the rankings because the Pats schedule strength would go down and the Colts would improve. I'm not saying this is a good judgement of where the teams stand relative to each other (even as a Colts fan, I agree that the Pats are playing the best football of any team in the NFL), just that its interesting.
On the '96 Packers and '99 Rams, I'll take the middle ground. I remember The Greatest Show on Turf as an all-time great offense -- perhaps the greatest of all time -- but there WERE several important chinks in their armor, many of which were exposed in the playoffs. Their historically dominant regular season, for one, came against a historically weak set of opponents: they only beat one team with 10 or more wins (the Titans, who beat them 24-21). And they played six games against the 49ers, Falcons, and Saints (combined record: 12-36... ahh, the old NFC West). In the playoffs, against non-mediocre competition, the Show was largely held in check