AVAILABLE JULY 9!

PFP 2008

Click here for more info.

Most Recent Ramblings

Get notified when new Outsider Ramblings are posted:


||

Top 5 Total DVOA

2007 FINAL

  1. NE (52.0%)
  2. IND (33.1%)
  3. DAL (24.3%)
  4. JAC (23.7%)
  5. GB (21.2%)

Top 5 Offense

2007 FINAL

  1. NE (42.6%)
  2. IND (28.3%)
  3. JAC (20.7%)
  4. DAL (19.0%)
  5. GB (17.3%)

Top 5 Defense

2007 FINAL

  1. TEN (-13.4%)
  2. PIT (-12.3%)
  3. IND (-10.7%)
  4. TB (-10.2%)
  5. SD (-9.8%)

Top 5 Special Teams

2007 FINAL

  1. CHI (9.3%)
  2. CLE (6.9%)
  3. HOU (5.7%)
  4. SF (4.5%)
  5. SD (4.5%)
Play texas holdem poker on Launchpoker.com

  • You've never been closer to a poker game than today, however, deciding where to play became a problem. Look at all online poker sites, enjoy the best selection of online poker and get the best poker bonus.
Wish to Play & Win big time at the best Online Casino sites?
CasinosVIPLounge is your comprehensive guide to the world of Online Casinos. From Casino Games to online Sports Betting. Gambling tips, casino reviews, freebies, Bonuses, breaking news
and much more...

2007 CFBA Nominee: Best Audio

COME VISIT
THE LATEST ADDITION
TO OUR FAMILY

Basketball Prospectus

Baseball Prospectus


ArmchairGM -- All Sports, All You

» Printable version

Week 8 DVOA Ratings

10/30/2007

by Aaron Schatz

Here are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through eight 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 80% and will increase each week until they are full strength after Week 10.

No more DAVE this week, as all ratings now are based solely on performance in 2007. Instead, we bring back WEIGHTED DVOA, the formula which drops the importance of earlier games to get a better picture of how well teams are playing now. Right now, those ratings aren’t much different from regular DVOA, but that will change over time, especially for teams that struggled early like the Giants and Saints.

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 		NON-ADJ
TOT VOA 		W-L OFFENSE
DVOA 		OFF.
RANK 		DEFENSE
DVOA 		DEF.
RANK 		S.T.
DVOA 		S.T.
RANK
1 NE 70.6% 1 73.6% 8-0 49.0% 1 -16.4% 3 5.2% 5
2 IND 57.0% 2 55.6% 7-0 42.8% 2 -13.4% 6 0.8% 13
3 DAL 35.2% 3 35.1% 6-1 24.9% 3 -10.6% 7 -0.3% 14
4 PIT 29.9% 4 37.9% 5-2 13.3% 7 -18.2% 2 -1.6% 19
5 SD 20.0% 9 18.4% 4-3 11.1% 9 -2.3% 14 6.7% 4
6 TB 18.6% 5 10.9% 4-4 15.9% 4 -3.9% 13 -1.2% 16
7 GB 17.3% 7 19.8% 6-1 11.7% 8 -7.1% 9 -1.4% 17
8 TEN 17.1% 6 17.1% 5-2 -3.3% 19 -25.9% 1 -5.4% 29
9 JAC 17.0% 8 11.3% 5-2 8.2% 12 -6.0% 10 2.8% 10
10 SEA 12.4% 10 20.1% 4-3 -2.5% 18 -5.6% 11 9.4% 2
11 PHI 10.6% 13 16.3% 3-4 14.1% 6 1.1% 17 -2.3% 21
12 NYG 6.7% 12 13.3% 6-2 7.0% 13 -5.3% 12 -5.6% 31
13 WAS 4.1% 11 -6.4% 4-3 -12.2% 25 -14.3% 5 2.0% 12
14 BAL 0.5% 14 14.3% 4-3 -13.0% 26 -15.1% 4 -1.6% 18
15 CLE 0.0% 18 -2.3% 4-3 10.3% 11 17.9% 29 7.6% 3
16 MIN -2.0% 15 -0.6% 2-5 -4.2% 20 0.4% 16 2.6% 11
TEAM
TOTAL
DVOA 		LAST
WEEK 		NON-ADJ
TOT VOA 		W-L OFFENSE
DVOA 		OFF.
RANK 		DEFENSE
DVOA 		DEF.
RANK 		S.T.
DVOA 		S.T.
RANK
17 CIN -2.1% 16 -4.0% 2-5 14.6% 5 12.0% 24 -4.7% 27
18 BUF -5.8% 23 -9.8% 3-4 -15.1% 28 0.3% 15 9.5% 1
19 ARI -6.1% 17 3.2% 3-4 -2.3% 17 3.4% 18 -0.4% 15
20 DEN -7.8% 21 -13.9% 3-4 10.8% 10 15.6% 28 -3.0% 22
21 KC -9.3% 20 -2.3% 4-3 -15.1% 27 -8.0% 8 -2.2% 20
22 DET -12.9% 24 -5.3% 5-2 0.8% 15 7.0% 22 -6.6% 32
23 NO -14.0% 26 -18.6% 3-4 0.0% 16 10.7% 23 -3.3% 23
24 HOU -14.7% 19 -18.6% 3-5 -4.6% 22 13.1% 25 3.0% 8
25 CAR -14.7% 22 -7.8% 4-3 -4.2% 21 5.2% 20 -5.3% 28
26 CHI -23.8% 25 -26.2% 3-5 -24.6% 31 4.0% 19 4.7% 6
27 MIA -25.1% 28 -30.7% 0-8 2.9% 14 24.6% 31 -3.5% 24
28 ATL -25.6% 27 -21.1% 1-6 -8.6% 24 13.1% 26 -3.9% 25
29 OAK -30.0% 30 -23.5% 2-5 -17.7% 29 6.6% 21 -5.6% 30
30 NYJ -31.2% 29 -32.9% 1-7 -8.6% 23 27.0% 32 4.4% 7
31 STL -40.4% 31 -41.5% 0-8 -22.4% 30 13.7% 27 -4.4% 26
32 SF -50.0% 32 -44.8% 2-5 -34.1% 32 18.8% 30 3.0% 9

  • 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 WEIGHTED
VOA 		RANK PAST
SCHED 		RANK FUTURE
SCHED 		RANK VAR. RANK
1 NE 70.6% 8-0 8.0 1 70.3% 1 -0.6% 19 5.3% 13 5.0% 24
2 IND 57.0% 7-0 8.0 1 57.2% 2 0.2% 16 5.7% 10 5.8% 22
3 DAL 35.2% 6-1 6.0 3 34.4% 3 -2.5% 23 -0.7% 18 8.7% 18
4 PIT 29.9% 5-2 5.0 9 27.3% 4 -7.4% 29 -1.3% 19 29.0% 1
5 SD 20.0% 4-3 5.2 6 23.2% 5 0.3% 15 3.7% 14 16.4% 6
6 TB 18.6% 4-4 5.0 8 17.9% 7 2.7% 10 -18.3% 31 24.7% 3
7 GB 17.3% 6-1 5.5 4 16.2% 9 1.0% 13 -13.8% 29 4.2% 27
8 TEN 17.1% 5-2 5.0 7 17.2% 8 1.0% 12 1.8% 17 4.5% 26
9 JAC 17.0% 5-2 5.3 5 18.0% 6 4.4% 9 5.6% 11 3.6% 29
10 SEA 12.4% 4-3 4.6 11 11.7% 10 -8.0% 30 -18.7% 32 17.9% 5
11 PHI 10.6% 3-4 4.8 10 9.2% 11 -5.2% 26 14.9% 3 14.4% 8
12 NYG 6.7% 6-2 4.5 13 8.2% 12 -8.1% 31 9.5% 4 8.2% 20
13 WAS 4.1% 4-3 4.1 18 4.3% 13 7.6% 4 5.4% 12 9.5% 17
14 BAL 0.5% 4-3 3.8 20 0.9% 15 -17.0% 32 24.1% 1 2.8% 31
15 CLE 0.0% 4-3 4.5 14 1.3% 14 0.4% 14 -8.4% 25 8.7% 19
16 MIN -2.0% 2-5 4.1 15 -2.9% 17 -1.1% 20 -9.5% 26 3.8% 28
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA 		W-L ESTIM.
WINS 		RANK WEIGHTED
VOA 		RANK PAST
SCHED 		RANK FUTURE
SCHED 		RANK VAR. RANK
17 CIN -2.1% 2-5 4.6 12 -2.9% 18 9.1% 2 -10.0% 28 2.1% 32
18 BUF -5.8% 3-4 4.1 16 -2.5% 16 8.3% 3 7.1% 8 12.7% 13
19 ARI -6.1% 3-4 3.4 23 -7.3% 19 -7.3% 28 -14.2% 30 27.7% 2
20 DEN -7.8% 3-4 3.6 21 -10.3% 21 13.2% 1 -8.1% 24 16.3% 7
21 KC -9.3% 4-3 4.1 17 -7.9% 20 -4.4% 25 2.7% 16 9.5% 16
22 DET -12.9% 5-2 4.0 19 -12.5% 23 -5.8% 27 8.9% 5 18.0% 4
23 NO -14.0% 3-4 3.3 24 -11.0% 22 1.8% 11 -9.9% 27 10.0% 14
24 HOU -14.7% 3-5 3.0 25 -17.3% 25 4.5% 8 7.2% 7 13.9% 11
25 CAR -14.7% 4-3 3.5 22 -13.2% 24 -3.2% 24 3.5% 15 14.1% 9
26 CHI -23.8% 3-5 2.6 26 -23.3% 26 5.8% 6 -1.7% 20 6.1% 21
27 MIA -25.1% 0-8 2.3 27 -25.8% 28 5.1% 7 8.3% 6 5.0% 23
28 ATL -25.6% 1-6 2.2 28 -25.4% 27 -0.6% 18 -2.3% 21 4.6% 25
29 OAK -30.0% 2-5 1.7 30 -29.1% 29 -2.2% 22 6.7% 9 13.0% 12
30 NYJ -31.2% 1-7 1.9 29 -30.7% 30 6.2% 5 15.3% 2 3.2% 30
31 STL -40.4% 0-8 1.5 31 -39.8% 31 -0.5% 17 -4.8% 22 14.0% 10
32 SF -50.0% 2-5 1.1 32 -51.4% 32 -1.4% 21 -7.5% 23 9.7% 15

Best DVOA Ever Watch

BEST TOTAL DVOA BEST OFFENSIVE DVOA
AFTER 8 WEEKS AFTER 8 GAMES AFTER 8 WEEKS AFTER 8 GAMES
2007 NE 70.6% 2007 NE 70.6% 2007 NE 49.0% 2007 NE 49.0%
2007 IND 57.0% 1996 GB 49.4% 2000 STL 45.5% 2000 STL 43.7%
1999 STL 55.9% 2001 STL 46.8% 2000 IND 44.9% 2000 IND 43.1%
1996 GB 55.9% 1999 STL 46.5% 2007 IND 42.8% 2004 IND 40.3%
2006 CHI 47.4% 2001 PHI 46.5% 2004 IND 37.8% 1999 WAS 36.3%
1998 DEN 43.6% 2000 TEN 43.7% 1999 WAS 36.5% 1998 DEN 33.0%
2001 STL 43.5% 1999 JAC 43.1% 1998 DEN 35.0% 2006 IND 32.7%
2005 IND 40.6% 2003 KC 40.4% 2006 IND 34.8% 2002 SF 32.1%
2003 KC 40.4% 2005 IND 40.1% 2002 SF 34.3% 2004 KC 30.9%
2002 TB 39.9% 2002 TB 39.9% 2004 KC 31.6% 2005 DEN 30.4%

* * * * * *

I’m really sick today and I think I’ve been coherent for about three hours total, so no extended commentary, just a couple notes. No team had ever put up 70% DVOA for the season any later than Week 5 until the current Patriots. That rating is just mind-blowing. My nightmare scenario has the Colts beating the Patriots by a last-minute field goal, which would probably mean the Pats still had the higher DVOA even though the Colts were the last undefeated team.

Mike Harris re-did the playoff odds as if each team won the “Game of the Century.” If the Colts win, their chances of going 16-0 improve from 4.7% to 11.4%. If the Patriots win, their chances of going 16-0 improve from 12.3% to 20.0%.

Look for updates soon on these pages:

For (short) comments on every team, look for DVOA on AOL, every Wednesday. (This will be linked on the FO Goes Mainstream page.)

posted 10-30-2007 at 6:57 PM by Aaron Schatz || DVOA Ratings ||

199 Comments »

  1. I’m going to go ahead and guess that that isn’t really Weighted DVOA in blue on that second chart.

    :: fish shure — 10/30/2007 @ 7:17 pm



  2. Oh, looks like it’s fixed now. Nevermind.

    Does anyone know what odds DVOA would give (roughly) to the Pats-Colts matchup? I suppose it’s wildly complicated, but is a 13.6% difference very large? I assume some of it is negated by Indy being at home.

    :: fish shure — 10/30/2007 @ 7:18 pm



  3. fish: I think to pick games, you subtract 13% from the DVOA of the visiting team. That makes NE .6% ahead of Indy–virtually a tie.

    :: Briguy16 — 10/30/2007 @ 7:23 pm



  4. 3: I thought the difference home field made was determined to be 17%.

    :: Richard — 10/30/2007 @ 7:26 pm



  5. Re 2: Exactly its very close to the generic home field advantage of 15.

    Probably Somethign like 52%-55% wim chance for the colts.

    :: Kulko — 10/30/2007 @ 7:28 pm



  6. looks like the simulation gives the Pats a 61% chance of winning, based on the odds of them going undefeated.

    :: AndyE — 10/30/2007 @ 7:31 pm



  7. Wow… Even with the adjustments from playing half of the top 10, the Broncos numbers are crap. Sweet deal. I know I said this last week, but the numbers are even crazier now: -21.3% difference between past schedule and future schedule! The road back to mediocrity starts now!

    :: david — 10/30/2007 @ 7:34 pm



  8. And…the Jets have the worst defense in football! Get rid of Pennington, that bum! He can’t tackle for sh*t!

    :: Gus — 10/30/2007 @ 7:39 pm



  9. And Baltimore’s future to past schedule differential is now a freakish 41%. That’s kinda like having to play an extra top-3 team. Insane.

    :: slo-mo-joe — 10/30/2007 @ 7:41 pm



  10. “My nightmare scenario has the Colts beating the Patriots by a last-minute field goal, which would probably mean the Pats still had the higher DVOA even though the Colts were the last undefeated team.”

    I don’t think we get as many DVOA trolls because it’s not posted on Fox this year. I doubt people will complain much. DVOA also hasn’t been very goofy this year in general. The only oddity is that DVOA doesn’t think 2-5 Minnesota sucks.

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 7:42 pm



  11. What’s the record for largest before-the-game difference in DVOA for two teams playing each other?

    It’s a good thing the AFC East isn’t playing the NFC West this season. It’s bad enough within the AFC East as it is.

    :: Waverly — 10/30/2007 @ 7:44 pm



  12. I thought home field advantage is something like 10% or 3 pts. No matter what though, the game could go either way. But you do have NE getting Richard Seymour back and the Colts getting Harrison back. I think Seymour is going to be more of a force.

    But the game will probably be decided by how effective Dallas Clark will be. Rodney Harrison might be exposed in coverage.

    :: TanGeng — 10/30/2007 @ 7:44 pm



  13. what’s the worst offensive DVOA of all time?

    :: zenbitz — 10/30/2007 @ 7:46 pm



  14. 13: I’m pretty sure it’s the Niners from Alex Smith’s rookie year.

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 7:49 pm



  15. But those Baltimore Ravens are in for a rough stretch. They’re going from the easiest schedule to the hardest. Yikes!!

    Do they have to play NE, INDY, the San Diego and the rest of AFC North or something? I’m not expecting the Ravens to win their division!

    :: TanGeng — 10/30/2007 @ 7:51 pm



  16. How much does the Patriots running up the score count towards their DVOA?

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 7:55 pm



  17. Oh god no.

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 7:57 pm



  18. 16. Please, can we not?

    :: Temo — 10/30/2007 @ 8:02 pm



  19. DVOA loves Philadelphia!!!

    :: RMoses — 10/30/2007 @ 8:02 pm



  20. There is no number 14. There is no number 14. There is no number 14. However, the playoff odds reports seems to give the Pats a 63.4 to 34.5 advantage next week, assuming the winner of this week correlate to the winner of the season

    :: AndyE — 10/30/2007 @ 8:08 pm



  21. Regarding strength of schedule. Sagarin ratings have the Vikings having played the 4th toughest schedule and DVOA has them 20th. I think I read on this site somewhere that Sagarin ratings are better future game predictors than DVOA.

    I just find it odd that the spread would be so big.

    :: jimm — 10/30/2007 @ 8:08 pm



  22. Just so you guys know, there is no “official” home field advantage modifier for DVOA. In fact, we like to point out that DVOA isn’t a blunt instument for use when handicapping games. There are a lot of individual breakdowns you can use to try to get an edge in games (like checking run defense vs. opponent’s run offense) that you can use as tools which, with a dose of your own judgment mixed in, can lead to some accurate predictions.

    For amusment purposes only, naturally.

    :: Mike Tanier — 10/30/2007 @ 8:10 pm



  23. further evidence DVOA isn’t everything:

    If the Jaguars can go TO tampa bay missing their starting QB (who may return by the Tennessee game in 2 weeks btw) and win, and be 3 games over .500… they are inferior to .500 Tampa Bay. I’m not buying it.

    :: Sam — 10/30/2007 @ 8:12 pm



  24. 18:

    Let me rephrase the question. How much did the Patriots’ second half performance effect their DVOA? This is a legitimate question in assessing the disparity between them and the Colts.

    I’m not going to malign Belichick for his late-game philosophy, but I think it bears considering how it should be regarded as far as FO goes. I understand that there’s an adjustment for junk time scoring, but that it doesn’t completely eliminate the effects of so called “running up the score.”

    For example, the Chargers throttled Houston on Sunday and probably could have scored 60 if they pressed. But they turned of the jets during the second half. Is their performance on Sunday worse than the Patriots who had more trouble with the Redskins for the first 30 minutes?

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 8:23 pm



  25. The playoff odds have both IND and NE near locks to reach the playoffs, favored in the Super Bowl if they get there, and favored to reach the AFC championship game. What’s more, they are BOTH favored to win the AFC championship if they get there. (The Pats are more favored, presumably because they would be favored if they meet there.)

    This is uncharted territory. I don’t trust DVOA-to-points conversions or homefield DVOA adjustments at all at these heights. I doubt there is enough similar data to show whether they apply.

    But I seriously doubt the Patriots will get to run their clock-killer offense much, unlike this last game. (Yes, check the play-by-play. Brady’s last two TD drives each took more than 7:45 off the clock.) The emphasis will be on scoring until late in the fourth quarter, with no room for biasing the play selection towards runs and short passes.

    It ought to be fun.

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 8:26 pm



  26. #7: That schedule difficulty differential is encouraging, huh? :-)

    Another couple things I like is the special teams rank… now up to 22 from 32, and that number 10 offense (despite the red zone woes which I put down to youth and inexperience).

    It’s interesting that nobody in the media seems to have picked up on the fact that Shanahan has quietly rebuilt the Broncos, instead focusing on the difficulties the defense is having picking up Bates’ scheme.

    For the Packers game, Matt Lepsis and Erik Pears were the only starters on offense who were starting last year (or the year before, in Lepsis’ case since he was on IR last year). Injuries have played a part in this of course, but to have the 10th ranked offense in the league with almost all new players says quite a bit about Shanahan as a coach.

    I wish I was as optimistic about the defense. :-/ Still, Aaron Kampman of the Packers counsels patience with Bates’ scheme, and GB did get pretty good on D. So here’s hoping.

    :: Kaveman — 10/30/2007 @ 8:26 pm



  27. I think it’s pretty intersting that the Jags are 29th in variance.

    And are the estimated wins done out of 8 even for the teams with 7 games?

    :: blacksuit — 10/30/2007 @ 8:32 pm



  28. 22: For amusment purposes only, naturally.
    Off-topic question: why do so many writers (Simmons comes to mind) always make disclaimers like this? Gambling is perfectly legal if done through the right channels, so I don’t understand this behavior.
    Probably an inapt analogy, but when one of the outsiders discusses good tackling or blocking technique, they mean to do it on the football field, not on the street, where it could be contrued as assault. Therefore, why can’t they discuss gambling in the context of a legal casino or sports book?
    (P.S. I don’t mean this as an insult or a dig to Mike Tanier, just a simple question. If there is some legal precedence for making such a disclaimer, then I completely get it.)

    :: Eddo — 10/30/2007 @ 8:33 pm



  29. Re: #12

    On the other hand, TE Kyle Brady got banged up and missed the entire second half. If he can’t go on Sunday that’s a big, big minus for NE. He’s not much of a receiver these days, but he’s an absolute monster in the run-blocking and pass-blocking game. He’ll probably be needed to stop Freeney from chewing Matt Light up and spitting him out.

    It’ll also be interesting to see if TE Ben Watson is able to go. He’s not nearly as useful as a blocker as K. Brady is, but he’s fast for a TE and is very hard to bring down once he has the ball. Can definitely cause matchup problems. I would really be nice if he’s able to play.

    And there’s also whether or not S Eugene Wilson can play. He (like Watson) didn’t practice at all last week. Can’t have enough healthy DBs when playing the Colts.

    :: PatsFan — 10/30/2007 @ 8:36 pm



  30. Peter (#24 )–

    I’m not going to malign Belichick for his late-game philosophy, but I think it bears considering how it should be regarded as far as FO goes. I understand that there’s an adjustment for junk time scoring, but that it doesn’t completely eliminate the effects of so called “running up the score.

    Understand that the final drive by the Patriots’ offensive starters began in the third quarter, and lasted almost eight minutes. DVOA loves long, time-killing drives with multiple first downs and lots of successful plays, even for a team that has a big lead.

    That, I think, is what most people have ignored in their rush to praise or blame the Patriots for what they did to Washington. They ran about four extra minutes off the clock after the long pass to Moss, and just shy of two of those, came after the fourth-down conversion.

    The Patriots weren’t running up the score; they were killing the clock. It wasn’t the touchdown that put the game out of reach for the ‘Skins; it was that almost half the time remaining after they turned it over on downs late in the third, was gone when they got the ball back again.

    :: Starshatterer — 10/30/2007 @ 8:37 pm



  31. honest question.

    FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season

    Is average DVOA really the best way to estimate future schedule, especially in a year in which there’s a crazy DVOA outlier like NE? Thru week 7, washington had the toughest future sked (or close to it), but now that NE is behind them, their past sked has moved up to 4th toughest and future has dropped to 12th. Getting blasted by the Pats is unpleasant, but it still only counts as 1 loss. Hope this question makes sense.

    :: Carlos — 10/30/2007 @ 8:39 pm



  32. So, this Sunday will feature a matchup of possibly the best two teams EVER?

    :: Chris — 10/30/2007 @ 8:40 pm



  33. The game was already out of reach. That’s why it’s called running up the score.

    :: David — 10/30/2007 @ 8:40 pm



  34. For the love of god, please not in this thread, too.

    :: PatsFan — 10/30/2007 @ 8:44 pm



  35. I was really going to avoid this but

    They ran about four extra minutes off the clock after the long pass to Moss

    that is classic.

    The game was already out of reach. That’s why it’s called running up the score.

    Stop it, everyone is bored. That goes for pats fans too, avoid this topic.

    Disclaimer - non pats fan, non pats hater.

    :: Jimmy — 10/30/2007 @ 8:48 pm



  36. #30:

    I’m not here to debate the moral value of those final drives. My opinion about Belichick’s tactics has no bearing on how DVOA treats his team for conducting them. In assessing this Patriots v. Colts game, we need to know just how much value is assigned to those final two drives towards their total DVOA.

    Why? Because we can’t ignore the argument that several other teams would (and have) deliberately handed the ball off three times and punted rather than converting on fourth down twice with the game in hand. This, I suspect, is the primary philosphical disparity that distances the Patriots from the Colts.

    Again, I’m not disparaging the Patriots. My opinion of their strategy aside, they’re a spectacular team, and there’s something to be said for the psychological effect of their cutthroat attitude on their opposition.

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 8:48 pm



  37. In summary, what I mean is that the Patriots’ tactics might reward them in DVOA, but not really represent a gulf in ability between them and the Colts. In effect, ‘punishing’ the Colts for choosing to go conservative when a game is clearly in hand.

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 8:52 pm



  38. In looking at the numbers, I chuckled when I saw that Indy is #1 in defense against an opponent’s top WR. That’s such a misleading stat. Indy is likely #1 versus the WR1 because Hedyon, who is a big hitter and I like him, is not very good at coverage, and his WR (often the #2) gets many, many passes in front of him that go for 6-8 yards. The one good thing is that if he’s matched up on Stalworth, he ought to do better in stopping YAC than most of the defenders I have seen (thinking of the ‘Ole Dolphins defense here).

    (PS: Colts fan here)

    :: Purds — 10/30/2007 @ 8:54 pm



  39. The game was already out of reach.

    Not with 2:02 left in the third. At that point, it would take a comeback like the Lions had against the Bears in week 4, scoring something like two points a minute to end the game.

    But the Lions *did* score two points a minute against the Bears in week 4, so the precedent was there. Grinding eight minutes off the clock meant that the Redskins had to score something over four points a minute to reach 38. The touchdown was less important than the time the Patriots used on that drive.

    Not running up the score, running down the clock.

    :: Starshatterer — 10/30/2007 @ 8:55 pm



  40. Looking at WR DVOA, I was wondering what folks in general thought about this: Who would you want roaming the slot postion, Welker or Clark or Stokley?

    Stokley is having a good year, but the fundamental question is this: which type of slot receiver would you prefer, the semi-TE, or the more pure WR? (I think both of them do many of the same things well). Clark fits for the Colts, as they don’t sub often so as to keep the defense from subbing, and Clark’s passible as a TE in short-yardage. But Welker allows NE to really spread it out, running him underneath the routes of the other WR’s.

    But, for non-Pats or non-Indy fans, which would you like more?

    :: Purds — 10/30/2007 @ 9:00 pm



  41. To build on my Q in #31 — I’m sure you can do the math that prompts my question, but by this methodology, if your remaining schedule is
    NE
    NYG
    NYJ
    This methodology yields a 23.8 Future DVOA average. In reality it’ll yield 1 or 2 wins for an average team.

    Whereas
    DAL
    PIT
    WAS
    yields a 23.1 Future DVOA average, and in reality yields 0 or 1 win for the average team.

    With this methodology being skewed by NE (and IND), the top schedule gets rated harder than the bottom schedule, even though I think everyone would prefer the top schedule if what you want to do is maximize wins.

    :: Carlos — 10/30/2007 @ 9:01 pm



  42. But, for non-Pats or non-Indy fans, which would you like more?

    Clark, and is it even close? Let’s see a lot more performance from Welker over time and then reevaluate.

    :: Carlos — 10/30/2007 @ 9:03 pm



  43. 24:
    Are you serious? OK, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    The issue with “garbage time” is that if the losing team stops trying, or the winning team swithces to a pure run-out-the-clock strategy, DVOA could get a bit dicey.

    We can safely assume that the Redskins continued to try to score right up to the time of their last score, and possibly beyond that. (After all, they had tried very hard to score earlier and failed.) The Patriots certainly stopped seriously trying to score when they took Brady out, although their backup QB did score — even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. They may have been in clock-killing mode earlier (possibly the entire half, considering the times of possession and length of the drives). They seemed to be trying to prevent a score after that, at least until their next possession.

    That gives about 3:00 of garbage time, with some additional time where Washington was trying on both sides of the ball and New England was trying on defense, and possibly biasing their play-calls towards runs and short possession passes on offense.

    Not enough to matter - maybe the Patriots are slightly better than their DVOA says.

    If you believe the Redskins were “letting” the Patriots score earlier, or that some other effect was in play, you’re still only talking about one quarter out of thirty-two, or one half out of sixteen. Again, not much of a difference.

    My own belief is that the Patriots were running their clock-killing offense (which includes longer passes only to keep the defense honest - just one such pass in the Skins game), but that since this offense strives for sustained drives, it doesn’t skew DVOA much.

    So trust the DVOA, at least as far as this issue goes.

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 9:04 pm



  44. #39:

    I’d really urge you not to make this into a debate it’s not. Some teams who dominated sat on leads last Sunday (i.e. San Diego). But when the game was in question, they played better than the Patriots.

    See, that’s thing. Now it becomes a question of choice. A dominant team either A) chooses to take their foot off the gas or B) just keeps humming. So are is the team that deliberately stopped being aggressive worse or less able than its counterpoint? I think we’d all agree the answer is no. So maybe the Colts and Patriots are a lot closer than we think.

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 9:05 pm



  45. #37: The problem with trying to negate the two Pats scoring drives is that you’re not really replacing them with anything else. In essence, the Pats played for 60 minutes, when some other teams might have stopped trying after say, 45 minutes. But the difficulty lies in determining exactly where the other team might have stopped trying.

    It might not be fair to compare the offensive accomplishment of a team that tries for a full 60 minutes to one which starts handing off to their 2nd string running back after 45 minutes but then it becomes a judgement call as to when you should stop counting plays towards DVOA.

    If, as you suggest, the last half of the game was easily in hand and should be ignored, you’re trying to compare 45 minutes of effort to 30 minutes of effort, which is just as bad as trying to compare 45 minutes to 60 minutes. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s hard to compare apples to apples if we start asking that question.

    :: Tom — 10/30/2007 @ 9:06 pm



  46. #43:

    Again, not a question of anything the Skins did, but a postulation on what the Colts might do in the same situation. Clearly, DVOA says Indy could probably beat Washington nearly as badly as the Pats did.

    So, up 38-0, and 45-0, does Dungy try for fourth down twice? No, probably not. Does it hurts his teams DVOA relative to the Pats? Very much so, I take it. But not really because the Redskins outplyed the Colts, or the Colts are “worse” than the Pats.

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 9:11 pm



  47. In summary, what I mean is that the Patriots’ tactics might reward them in DVOA, but not really represent a gulf in ability between them and the Colts. In effect, ‘punishing’ the Colts for choosing to go conservative when a game is clearly in hand.

    Excpet that the Colts did the same thing. (Not talking morality here, just tactics.) The Colts got the ball with 2:26 in the third and the lead. They ran just over four minutes off the clock, taking the game into the fourth quarter, mixing runs and passes to get first downs, until they ran out of field and scored.

    DVOA should see not much difference between those two drives, other than rewardibng the Patriots for their relatively worse starting field position (the Colts’ drive started around their own 45, the Patriots’ at their own 13).

    :: Starshatterer — 10/30/2007 @ 9:13 pm



  48. It’s interesting to compare Washington and Baltimore’s chances of making the playoffs, and how it reflects the difference in the strength of their respective leagues. Despite the two teams having identical records and a division with one top-tier team and some strong competitors, Washington’s odds are three times better! Part of this may be down to the Ravens’ more difficult remaining sked (the fact that the Redskins dropped from 3rd to 12th in that category after playing the pats shows just how much that game looms over the Ravens’ schedule) but still, it’s crazy how much easier life is in the NFC.

    :: Some Dude — 10/30/2007 @ 9:15 pm



  49. #45:

    Very good point, Tom. It does become a subjective call. *hears the running-up-the-score debate begin again*

    But, as a reasonable and intelligent guy, you might not be able to quantify the point at which Dungy would start handing the ball of, but you can qualitatively recognize that his philosophy would “hurt” his team’s DVOA.

    I agree that the Pats and the Colts are the two best teams in the NFL, but we haven’t seen very much of the Patriots’ late game strategy in the DVOA years, so I’m not sure it represents them correctly.

    I suspect that the two teams are probably even, rather than separated by the margin DVOA suggests.

    :: Peter — 10/30/2007 @ 9:17 pm



  50. Since I really don’t want to get into the “running up the score” debate, I hereby concede that the Patriots were “running up the first downs” well into the fourth quarter, until they took Brady out. If others think that is unsportsmanlike, I guess I’m okay with that.

    Now, let’s get back to interesting discussions of DVOA.

    Does anyone know if the dataset used to tune DVOA includes any matchups even remotely like next week’s IND-NE game? How far out of the range of the analysis is this game? Or is this more common than I think?

    In particular, do we have any data that helps us understand how a 70.6-57.0 advantage compares to a 13.6-0.0 advantage?

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 9:17 pm



  51. 28; I personally do the disclaimer because I am not really a gambler and think it’s a bit of a bad habit. I also do it to be coy, which is why I think a lot of writers do it.

    It would really, really be lovely to get through the rest of this thread without reading about the Patriots and running up the score. If you do want to talk about such things, remember that there’s a special message board on the site for that.

    :: Mike Tanier — 10/30/2007 @ 9:35 pm



  52. #44 - How many minutes have the other teams sat their starters during games? I would guess that the Patriots have sat their starters longer then any other team and as a result have had sub par results from the drives started by those back ups in their data more then other teams. Take Matt Cassell’s Int for a TD for an example. I would think this would offset the one or two running up TDs that anyone else wouldn’t score.

    :: bsr — 10/30/2007 @ 9:37 pm



  53. Peter, what’s your basis for asserting San Diego played better than New England on Sunday while the game was “in doubt.”

    :: Fat Tony — 10/30/2007 @ 9:41 pm



  54. Discussing running up the score and its effect on DVOA is plain stupid. It only hurts those who are good enough to do it but don’t do it. It only matters to NE and Indy and even then it depresses their DVOA.

    :: TanGeng — 10/30/2007 @ 9:45 pm



  55. Re: #51

    *Applause*

    :: PatsFan — 10/30/2007 @ 9:45 pm



  56. I don’t think we get as many DVOA trolls because it’s not posted on Fox this year. I doubt people will complain much. DVOA also hasn’t been very goofy this year in general. The only oddity is that DVOA doesn’t think 2-5 Minnesota sucks.

    Yeah, because trolls from Fox would have made the Audibles thread so unreadable.

    Actually, from my standpoint there are several goofy things about DVOA. Look at KC. The Chiefs are 3-1 against teams ahead of them in DVOA (SD, JAC, MIN, CIN) and 1-2 against teams worse than them (OAK, CHI, HOU). And if they were to play all of them this week, in the same location as the original game, they might easily go 5-2 (move CHI and HOU to the win column and SD to the loss side).

    :: MRH — 10/30/2007 @ 9:45 pm



  57. “…. for amusement purposes only” comes from the standard disclaimer written on football cards, the ones that list spreads on the major college and nfl games. As Simmons might say, it’s one of those jokes that writes itself.

    :: Fat Tony — 10/30/2007 @ 9:50 pm



  58. Does anyone know if the dataset used to tune DVOA includes any matchups even remotely like next week’s IND-NE game? How far out of the range of the analysis is this game? Or is this more common than I think?

    This year’s Patriots and Colts are #1 and #2 for total DVOA after eight weeks. The remaining eight teams in the top ten, are all from different seasons.

    I doubt it’s even a little bit common.

    :: Starshatterer — 10/30/2007 @ 9:51 pm



  59. Re: 31 It would be interesting to be given a variance on the average DVOA of the remaining schedule. It could give you a sense of what you’re driving at without going to the trouble of looking up a team’s individual schedule.

    :: flounder — 10/30/2007 @ 9:57 pm



  60. Putting the NE-running-up-the-score question aside completely. The Pats handed the ‘Skins their third largest margin of defeat ever. The ‘Skins were not even remotely in the game after the first quarter. And yet they’re still fifth in the league in defense DVOA? As a ‘Skins fan, I hafta take a bit of solace in the notion that the ‘Skins aren’t really that bad: but the Pats are really that good.

    :: Gil — 10/30/2007 @ 10:00 pm



  61. 58:
    Good point. So we probably have enough data about 13.6 DVOA advantages for teams that are about half as far above avaerage as these. Which I think means we know almost nothing about what this difference means, if it means anything at all.

    Turn up the thermostat a few degrees and pipe in some sound and I’d give the advantage to the Colts.

    Actually, it will be hot enough and loud enough without any artificial help.

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 10:09 pm



  62. Yeah, I can’t really figure out how the Vikings rank so high, other than they are really tough to run against, and their red zone passing defense has actually been decent. It intuitively seems impossible to me, despite Adrian Peterson, that the Vikings could be better than 12 other teams on offense, or that, for instance, that Kelly Holcomb has a positive DPAR.

    The numbers can’t really capture how pathetic the Vikings were on offense against the Eagles; I don’t think there is an adjustment made for the Eagles defense having nine or ten guys within four or five yards of the line of scrimmage for huge chunks of the game, even on third and ten or more. Yes, perhaps that is slightly balanced by the fact that the Vikings rushed a little bit against such a front, but in terms of actually scoring enough points to win, it was just laughable. The Eagles basically were saying, “We dare you to throw downfield, in fact we’ll just barely defend the pass downfield, in order to choke off other aspects of your offense.”, and the Vikings could do nothing about it. It was the most noncompetitive 2nd half game with a 6 point margin I’ve ever seen, and the numbers just don’t do it justice, given the Vikings weird ineptitude.

    :: Will Allen — 10/30/2007 @ 10:11 pm



  63. Is anyone else interested in working out whether or not there is a reason why the Colts and Pats are the two best DVOA teams ever? Personally, I think that the continual roster and coaching staff turnover on most teams (all in the name of parity) has rendered half the league seriously lacking in major areas. Off the top of my head; the Niners, Rams, Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bears, Vikings, Falcons, Bengals, Broncos and maybe the Texans all have a big weakness. Many of these sides are abysmal in one phase of the game. Add the dearth of decent quarterbacks to this mess and there seem to be an unusual nummber of teams that can’t execute and get outmannned when they do.

    :: Karl Cuba — 10/30/2007 @ 10:12 pm



  64. i’ve been on these boards now for weeks listening to pennington defenders. Yes, the jets have the 32nd ranked defense and that has little to nothing to do with pennington. But they still only have the 23rd ranked offense, and that is almost entirely on pennington. That is not to mention the killer pick 6’s he’s thrown this season.

    The defense is not good, but i’m not completely discouraged. They are prone to giving up the big play and missing tackles, but there have been times this year in which they have played like a semi-competent unit.

    :: pete — 10/30/2007 @ 10:12 pm



  65. 60:
    Or, the Skins may have had one bad game. But that still gets averaged with a defense that DVOA had ranked highly.

    The Skins’ problem was as much that their offense didn’t stay on the field long. That will wear a defense down. (Although giving up a fumble-TD does let the defense take another drive off.)

    I would expect the Redskin’s defense (and offense) DVOAs to climb a little bit as the rest of opponent adjustment comes in, and the Pats game fades to one-sixteenth of their season instead of one-seventh.

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 10:16 pm



  66. #56: Yeah, because trolls from Fox would have made the Audibles thread so unreadable.

    For amusement purposes only (*cough*), if one were to run the following on a Unix box…

    wget -O - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/10/29/ramblings/audibles/5671/ | awk ‘$1 ~ /::/ { if ($2 == “]”); $2 = t[2]; } posts[$2]++ } END { for (n in posts) { if (posts[n] > 10) { print n, posts[n]; } } }’

    … one would observe that 32% of the posts there were made by 5 people.

    Just sayin…

    :: Kaveman — 10/30/2007 @ 10:16 pm



  67. Hmm, there were angle brackets in that script which didn’t make it and snipped out a bit. If I remember my rusty HTML correctly, this should work… if not, never mind, it’s silly anyway.

    wget -O - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/10/29/ramblings/audibles/5671/ | awk ‘$1 ~ /::/ { if ($2 == “]”); $2 = t[2]; } posts[$2]++ } END { for (n in posts) { if (posts[n] > 10) { print n, posts[n]; } } }’

    :: Kaveman — 10/30/2007 @ 10:21 pm



  68. Add the dearth of decent quarterbacks to this mess…

    Actually, I think there are plenty of decent quarterbacks, although a few teams are obviously lacking.

    There aren’t many great quarterbacks, but I assume that’s a universal truth. There aren’t many great anythings.

    :: John — 10/30/2007 @ 10:23 pm



  69. 61:

    How come heat aversely affects the Pats but not the Colts? I guess the laws of thermodynamics disrespect the Pats.

    :: B. — 10/30/2007 @ 10:28 pm



  70. Karl, I think the variance in qb quality throughout the league is simply gigantic, which I suppose is not too surprising, given the position gets harder and harder to execute well, given the paramount importance of the passing game, and increasing speed and size of defensive players on a field that stays the same size. The production out of that position dominates team performance so much, relative to other positions, that such a huge variance may be leading to situations where parity starts to recede.

    I have great respect for Dungy and Belichik, but I think they would be the first guys to tell you that their most brilliant moves were to sign a contract to coach a team with Peyton Manning on the roster, or to trip over Tom Brady at the bottom of the draft. The best coaching job in the NFL this year may be by Bill Parcells, in nurturing the career of an undrafted nobody for three seasons, before he was ready to play. Then again, if Quincy Carter doesn’t relapse, Romo may have been cut, and who knows what happens to him.

    :: Will Allen — 10/30/2007 @ 10:33 pm



  71. Looking at the huge drop in the Giants’ offensive rankings, I guess there’s no adjustment for playing on a different continent in driving rain on grass not fit for a pee wee game. Unless 7 fumbles by both teams is considered “normal”. Plus, the Giants are the only team in the top half outperforming their estimated wins by a substantial margin. Can one bad offensive performance and 2 horrible defensive performances really do that?

    Will we have to hear again how Philly is actually a good team, but very unlucky?

    :: kevinNYC — 10/30/2007 @ 10:34 pm



  72. Kaveman 66/67 - I’ve noticed that it only really takes one troll with PDS (Pats Derangement Syndrome) to get all of us Pats homers in a tizzy. Morgana did it there, and Peter is trying it here, and I’m resisting mostly valiantly. But not quite.

    :: AndyE — 10/30/2007 @ 10:36 pm



  73. 69:
    Same reason that playing in cold weather outdoors favors the Patriots, I expect. Practice. Only the Patriots don’t have access to a thermostat.

    Now go run along and play. The grownups are trying to have a conversation.

    :: Nat — 10/30/2007 @ 10:40 pm



  74. 64:

    “Yes, the jets have the 32nd ranked defense and that has little to nothing to do with pennington. But they still only have the 23rd ranked offense, and that is almost entirely on pennington. That is not to mention the killer pick 6’s he’s thrown this season.”

    Really? It has nothing to do with Thomas Jones and his suckiness?

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 10:40 pm



  75. It’s amazing how good of a shot the Saints have at winning the division after being 0-4.

    :: Darrel — 10/30/2007 @ 10:43 pm



  76. Kaveman, care to show us the output of that script? Not that I’m not a 1337 enough hacker to run it on my own unix box or anything…. ok so I’m not.

    :: zip — 10/30/2007 @ 10:44 pm



  77. Hell, Andy, I’m a Colts supporter, and I fell prey to the lure of the rabid PDS people in that audibles thread. It’s kind of like interacting with the most obsessed conspiracy theorists for the first time; you kinda’ get sucked in. I’ll give myself a break because I never really participated in the Brady/Manning thread from hell.

    :: Will Allen — 10/30/2007 @ 10:44 pm



  78. 71: Kevin, you can say you think there are special circumstances that DVOA doesn’t account for without turning it into a big thing about how DVOA clearly disrespects the Giants. Nobody is out to get you.

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 10:47 pm



  79. 73.
    Thanks Gnat. That cleared it up. The Pats don’t prepare for heat and exhaustion as well. That must be why they do play as well against all dome / warm weather teams.

    :: B. — 10/30/2007 @ 10:54 pm



  80. And in random analysis while we wait for Wanker’s pretty charts:

    * The AFC gets better while the NFC gets worse. Instead of +4%/-4%, it’s now +5.4%/-5.3% (yay rounding errors).

    * While the NFC east is the tightest division still (6.3% deviation), the AFC north is catching up (6.6% deviation).

    * The AFC East at +2.1% is still the most “average” division (although that 101.8% spread between NE and NYJ is … comical. Does it mean that the Jets against the Pats is going to be like a 5 on 10 pickup game?).

    * The AFC South remains the best division (+19.1%).

    And while everyone is chatting about the unprecedented nature of the Pats and Colts, any insight into the unusual nature of STL and SF at -40 and -50?

    * Our 2006 AFC losers division (MIA, CLE, HOU, OAK) is still outperforming the NFC West -17.5% to -21.0%. OUr 2007 AFC DVOA losers division (NYJ, CIN, HOU, OAK) also stays ahead at -19.5%.

    * The average DVOA of NFC 2006 division losers (WAS,DET,TB,ARI) is higher than the average DVOA of any other NFC division spot.

    :: AndyE — 10/30/2007 @ 10:56 pm



  81. Buffalo is clearly ranked too high because they don’t have an offense. A juggs machine throwing to Lee Evans is way better than this. Dammit Trent Y U so smiley?!?!

    :: zip — 10/30/2007 @ 11:02 pm



  82. A couple of comments:

    The Broncos are at #5 in offense pass rank, which puts them between Dallas and Pittsburgh. As a Broncos fan, allow me to bask in my rose-colored dream-bubble thoughts of Cutler’s future. Mmm… (Hey, after MNF, I need something to smile about.)

    The Giants are ranked #2 in rush offense. Man, do they ever miss Tiki…

    :: hooper — 10/30/2007 @ 11:05 pm



  83. 51: Thanks Mike…I hope I didn’t come off as being snarky, I just wondered if there was a legal/official reason or if it was just being coy.
    63: I’d say that the Colts and Patriots have had such great success over the last 5-10 years due to great quarterback play, above all else. Think of all great continuously great teams - the Colts with Unitas, the 49ers with Montana, the Broncos with Elway, the Bills with Kelly, the Vikings with Tarkenton, etc. A great quarterback gives you a consistently good chance to win games, masking any other deficiencies that weak teams succumb to.

    :: Eddo — 10/30/2007 @ 11:06 pm



  84. #78… Your sarcasm meter is apparently out of service.

    It says kevinNYC, not raiderjoe.

    :: kevinNYC — 10/30/2007 @ 11:06 pm



  85. Hey, where is raiderjoe?

    :: Will Allen — 10/30/2007 @ 11:11 pm



  86. Oh yeah, since we have two historically good franchises, it makes sense to have historically bad franchises as well.

    How bad are SF and St. Louis? And how is SF worse than St. Louis. St. Louis has looked incomprehensibly bad every time I’ve watched. Did I miss some quality plays or is SF really that much worse?

    :: TanGeng — 10/30/2007 @ 11:11 pm



  87. This year’s Pats are likely going to end with the hihgest ever DVOA ever. Teams like 96 GB and 97 Den used to run the ball up the middle to kill the clock from the middle of the 3rd quarter until the end of the game as opposed to scoring 50+ on everyone. Heck every othher game 97 Den was up so large Davis would barely play after halftime if not at all. If they had wanted Davis could have run for 2,500+ yards that year

    :: Jason — 10/30/2007 @ 11:14 pm



  88. Add the dearth of decent quarterbacks to this mess…

    Actually, I think there are plenty of decent quarterbacks, although a few teams are obviously lacking.

    There are also problems of distribution and talent evaluation: some teams have a decent prospect backing up a good quarterback, and other teams passed up on getting a useable quarteback to keep a stiff they had convinced themselves was good.

    (This season, the Browns managed to do both, keeping the apparently quite handy Derek Anderson backing up the near-useless Charlie Frye.)

    :: Starshatterer — 10/30/2007 @ 11:14 pm



  89. 85: At first I was worried that he might be depressed that the Raiders are 2-5. But then it occurred to me that he never gets depressed about the Raiders. That’s why we love him so much. Could you imagine being a Raiders fan and not getting depressed that your team spent a pick on Robert Gallery when they could have had Fitzgerald or Rivers?

    He’s somewhere out there, and soon he’ll return to tell us how great J Russell will be.

    :: Yaguar — 10/30/2007 @ 11:27 pm



  90. So, up 38-0, and 45-0, does Dungy try for fourth down twice? No, probably not. Does it hurts his teams DVOA relative to the Pats?

    I don’t think so. Why would it? Indy’s fourth down punt is compared to other punts. New England’s 4th and 1 is compared with other 4th and 1’s. Two different beasties.

    If there’s any significant difference, it’d come on 1st-3rd downs. But we don’t know enough about how DVOA is calculated to determine the difference.

    :: Scott de B. — 10/30/2007 @ 11:29 pm



  91. 80:
    I was going to say that it was easier to be bad, because any team is just a couple of key injuries away from a 30% drop in DVOA.