Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

04 Oct 2005

Week 5 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

Remember that the DVOA commentary now resides on FOXSports.com. You'll find it here.

* * * * *

Here are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through Week 4 of 2005, 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 averaged based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)

OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted based on strength of opponent as well as to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. Opponent adjustments are currently set at 40% and will increase each week until they are full strength after Week 10. SPECIAL DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season. NON-ADJ TOTAL VOA does not include these adjustments.

As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE. Because of the Jewish holiday, these numbers do not include the Monday Green Bay-Carolina game.


TEAM
TOTAL
DVOA
LAST
WEEK
NON-ADJ
TOTAL VOA
W-L OFFENSE
DVOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
DVOA
DEF.
RANK
SPECIAL
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
1 CIN 63.9% 1 89.2% 4-0 22.4% 7 -37.7% 2 3.7% 8
2 NYG 51.2% 5 60.4% 3-1 35.2% 4 3.5% 18 19.4% 1
3 PIT 48.3% 2 70.9% 2-1 43.3% 2 -7.2% 9 -2.2% 22
4 SD 36.2% 11 28.5% 2-2 43.7% 1 9.0% 23 1.5% 13
5 PHI 35.1% 4 32.8% 3-1 28.1% 5 -19.7% 5 -12.7% 32
6 IND 28.1% 6 32.6% 4-0 26.3% 6 -3.9% 12 -2.1% 21
7 MIA 26.9% 8 24.5% 2-1 2.2% 15 -21.3% 4 3.4% 10
8 ATL 26.2% 17 35.6% 3-1 18.4% 9 -8.1% 8 -0.3% 17
9 SEA 25.3% 9 21.4% 2-2 37.4% 3 8.1% 22 -4.0% 26
10 TB 22.6% 3 42.3% 4-0 -10.8% 21 -33.3% 3 0.1% 16
11 CHI 21.2% 7 19.8% 1-2 -26.8% 27 -42.7% 1 5.2% 6
12 DEN 14.7% 19 19.2% 3-1 3.1% 14 -13.8% 6 -2.2% 23
13 JAC 8.8% 10 9.4% 2-2 -12.1% 23 -12.0% 7 8.9% 3
14 KC 6.0% 13 -5.7% 2-2 13.7% 10 12.6% 25 4.9% 7
15 OAK 2.1% 21 3.6% 1-3 18.5% 8 13.4% 26 -3.0% 24
16 DAL 1.0% 12 10.1% 2-2 5.3% 12 3.6% 19 -0.7% 18
TEAM
TOTAL
DVOA
LAST
WEEK
NON-ADJ
TOTAL VOA
W-L OFFENSE
DVOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
DVOA
DEF.
RANK
SPECIAL
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
17 CLE -3.1% 20 -14.1% 1-2 9.5% 11 16.1% 27 3.5% 9
18 CAR -3.4% 18 0.5% 1-2 -11.8% 22 -6.2% 10 2.2% 11
19 NE -5.9% 14 -19.7% 2-2 3.7% 13 10.2% 24 0.5% 15
20 BUF -11.7% 15 -6.5% 1-3 -21.9% 25 1.4% 15 11.6% 2
21 WAS -12.0% 22 -22.1% 3-0 -1.6% 16 3.1% 16 -7.3% 29
22 ARI -12.9% 29 -8.7% 1-3 -10.1% 20 1.1% 14 -1.7% 20
23 NO -18.6% 26 -20.8% 2-2 -2.3% 17 6.6% 20 -9.8% 31
24 STL -27.6% 16 -16.8% 2-2 -4.8% 18 19.5% 29 -3.3% 25
25 TEN -27.6% 23 -25.8% 1-3 -8.7% 19 24.3% 30 5.3% 5
26 DET -31.7% 30 -34.1% 1-2 -29.3% 29 -5.4% 11 -7.8% 30
27 MIN -32.7% 27 -57.7% 1-3 -27.3% 28 7.0% 21 1.6% 12
28 NYJ -34.3% 24 -17.1% 1-3 -34.3% 30 -1.7% 13 -1.7% 19
29 GB -40.2% 25 -40.7% 0-3 -17.7% 24 18.4% 28 -4.1% 27
30 BAL -46.3% 31 -43.6% 1-2 -38.0% 32 3.3% 17 -4.9% 28
31 HOU -57.0% 32 -88.3% 0-3 -23.5% 26 34.1% 32 0.6% 14
32 SF -57.4% 28 -62.0% 1-3 -38.0% 31 27.7% 31 8.3% 4

  • FOX RANK represents the FOXSports.com Power Ratings which are 50% 2005 DVOA, 20% 2005 pre-season projection, and 30% a special weighted DVOA for 2004 that includes the playoffs.
  • 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. It is based on the number of games a team has played so far, so teams which have not had their bye will appear higher.
  • 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.
  • 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 FOX

RANK
ESTIM.
WINS
RANK PAST

SCHED
RANK FUTURE
SCHED
RANK VARIANCE RANK
1 CIN 63.9% 4-0 3 3.6 2 -17.9% 30 -5.6% 26 25.7% 17
2 NYG 51.2% 3-1 6 3.7 1 -5.7% 21 0.5% 15 34.7% 13
3 PIT 48.3% 2-1 1 2.3 10 -30.2% 32 1.4% 14 47.0% 7
4 SD 36.2% 2-2 5 3.2 3 15.2% 7 9.3% 4 16.9% 22
5 PHI 35.1% 3-1 2 2.7 7 -5.8% 22 6.3% 9 41.1% 10
6 IND 28.1% 4-0 4 3.2 4 -17.0% 29 -5.3% 24 3.4% 30
7 MIA 26.9% 2-1 12 2.2 12 -7.7% 24 -2.0% 20 11.8% 25
8 ATL 26.2% 3-1 9 2.9 6 4.0% 12 -5.2% 23 20.2% 20
9 SEA 25.3% 2-2 11 2.9 5 2.5% 13 -16.0% 31 28.5% 14
10 TB 22.6% 4-0 7 2.7 8 -29.1% 31 -4.4% 22 20.8% 19
11 CHI 21.2% 1-2 20 1.6 20 6.7% 10 -16.1% 32 88.9% 2
12 DEN 14.7% 3-1 10 2.4 9 19.5% 4 2.0% 13 26.3% 16
13 JAC 8.8% 2-2 16 2.1 14 8.4% 9 -14.7% 30 41.1% 11
14 KC 6.0% 2-2 15 2.2 11 4.4% 11 12.1% 1 10.5% 27
15 OAK 2.1% 1-3 19 2.1 15 9.1% 8 8.1% 5 12.0% 24
16 DAL 1.0% 2-2 17 2.0 17 -7.8% 25 10.9% 3 8.0% 28
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
W-L FOX

RANK
ESTIM.
WINS
RANK PAST

SCHED
RANK FUTURE
SCHED
RANK VARIANCE RANK
17 CLE -3.1% 1-2 23 1.7 18 17.3% 5 -1.7% 17 2.6% 31
18 CAR -3.4% 1-2 13 2.2 13 -9.5% 26 -1.9% 18 11.7% 26
19 NE -5.9% 2-2 8 2.0 16 20.8% 3 3.4% 12 27.6% 15
20 BUF -11.7% 1-3 14 1.2 21 -6.7% 23 7.7% 7 58.9% 3
21 WAS -12.0% 3-0 18 1.1 25 15.8% 6 12.1% 2 2.0% 32
22 ARI -12.9% 1-3 24 1.2 22 -2.1% 19 -9.9% 29 42.9% 9
23 NO -18.6% 2-2 22 1.6 19 0.8% 15 0.2% 16 47.8% 6
24 STL -27.6% 2-2 29 1.2 23 -11.7% 28 -5.6% 25 19.1% 21
25 TEN -27.6% 1-3 28 0.9 28 0.6% 16 -2.0% 19 52.1% 5
26 DET -31.7% 1-2 27 1.0 26 1.2% 14 -2.3% 21 90.8% 1
27 MIN -32.7% 1-3 25 0.9 27 23.5% 2 -6.9% 27 46.8% 8
28 NYJ -34.3% 1-3 21 1.1 24 -1.1% 18 6.0% 10 12.3% 23
29 GB -40.2% 0-3 30 0.6 30 -3.9% 20 6.6% 8 5.5% 29
30 BAL -46.3% 1-2 26 0.7 29 -11.3% 27 7.8% 6 21.8% 18
31 HOU -57.0% 0-3 31 0.2 32 33.5% 1 -7.5% 28 37.5% 12
32 SF -57.4% 1-3 32 0.3 31 -1.1% 17 3.8% 11 58.2% 4

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 04 Oct 2005

71 comments, Last at 07 Oct 2005, 10:22pm by Jon

Comments

1
by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Tue, 10/04/2005 - 11:44pm

"That was easy, but my next opponent may put up more of a fight." NEXT: at SF, where the Niners will not put up more of a fight."
LOL!!
niiice.

2
by charles (not verified) :: Tue, 10/04/2005 - 11:46pm

I knew philly's special teams were struggling but not that much. I might need to start Willie Ponder at receiver when they play the eagles.

3
by BlueStarDude (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:04am

re "If Drew Bledsoe checked down to his secondary receivers against the Raiders, he would have found them wide open. The Raiders still cannot defend the pass, and most quarterbacks won't obligingly stand in the pocket the whole afternoon like Bledsoe did."

While Bledsoe wasn't exactly blameless, it seemed that Dallas's problems had more to due with collapses with the protection - not only the line, but esp. the rookie running backs not picking up blitzes on a few key plays.

4
by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:11am

"That was easy, but my next opponent may put up more of a fight." NEXT: at SF, where the Niners will not put up more of a fight."
LOL!!
niiice.

5
by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:12am

oh, wow. sorry about such a late double post. (had an initial error on the first posting then attempted to refresh much later.)
to not waste ANOTHER post::
"Titans owner Bud Adams never got rid of his Oilers supplies, by the way. Arena Football's Nashville Kats wear leftover Oilers socks. True story."
I've heard this story somewhere before...

6
by Jason (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:14am

The Giants are clearly the frauds among the Top teams. Talk about some powerhouse teams having beaten
St. Louis at home, New Orleans at home, and the Cardinals at home. San Diego hanging 40 on them had to be the most predictable outcome of the season so far

7
by Stereochemistry (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:29am

Wow, I know Tampa didn't play a very good game Sunday (though the defense seemed to do well until that last almost 93 yard drive), but their estimated wins went from 3.0 to 2.7 off of one game? Did they really play so bad as to deserve to lose "more" than one game?

8
by Kami (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:55am

Is it me, or are the percentages in the offensive and defense charts like..really screwed up?

9
by noahpoah (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:02am

Ah, the time of year I always remember one of my favorite Onion headlines-with-no-story: "Jews celebrate Rosh Hashashah or something."

But seriously, happy new year, Aaron Schatz, and nice commentary on the FoxSports power rankings (that goes to you, too, Mike Tanier, as I don't know who wrote which funny).

10
by David (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:18am

Random comment, but I can't wait to see the spread on Indy at San Fran. Triple digits, anyone?

11
by Jimmy Two Times (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:28am

David: It's IND -14. I say lay the points.

12
by David (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:39am

"Wow, I know Tampa didn’t play a very good game Sunday (though the defense seemed to do well until that last almost 93 yard drive), but their estimated wins went from 3.0 to 2.7 off of one game? Did they really play so bad as to deserve to lose “more� than one game?"

Bear in mind that all three teams they beat in weeks 1-3 lost in week 4, and aside from the Packers they all looked abysmal doing it - that'll downgrade anybody's DVOA. Add in the loss of offensive VOA in that game with Cadillac ineffective, and it's not too surprising.

13
by Aaron (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:07am

WEIGHTED DVOA doesn't work at this point, the equation tosses out those wacko numbers, and I forgot to remove them when I was hurrying to get things together Monday. I'll clean those tables up later this week.

14
by Nathan (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:29am

Buddy Love?! That couldn't have been a Kids in the hall reference, but I have no idea what it meant.

15
by Kibbles (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:54am

Aaron, if you don't mind, how strong are the opposition adjustments currently, and do they only take into account this season's performance, or some combination of this season and last season's still?

Thanks in advance.

16
by VarlosZ (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 6:34am

Jason, #6: The Giants are clearly the frauds among the Top teams. Talk about some powerhouse teams having beaten St. Louis at home, New Orleans at home, and the Cardinals at home. San Diego hanging 40 on them had to be the most predictable outcome of the season so far.

Though I don't think the Giants are the second best team in the league, to be fair you should consider that the Chargers also put up 40 at New England. They're pretty good.

17
by Vash (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 9:45am

NFL conventional wisdom summarized:
Week 1: The Patriots are so good that they can overcome the loss of Tedy Bruschi and win a third straight Super Bowl.
Week 2: The Patriots have been exposed! They might not even make the playoffs!
Week 3: The Patriots are so good that they can overcome the loss of Rodney Harrison and win a third straight Super Bowl.
Week 4: The Patriots have been exposed! They might not even make the playoffs!

So true.

18
by Vash (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 9:46am

NFL conventional wisdom summarized:
Week 1: The Patriots are so good that they can overcome the loss of Tedy Bruschi and win a third straight Super Bowl.
Week 2: The Patriots have been exposed! They might not even make the playoffs!
Week 3: The Patriots are so good that they can overcome the loss of Rodney Harrison and win a third straight Super Bowl.
Week 4: The Patriots have been exposed! They might not even make the playoffs!

So true.

19
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 9:56am

This would tend to support my belief that Washington is the luckiest 3-0 team in league history. Haven't looked at their schedule but you gotta figure that luck is gonna run out before too long.

20
by JasonK (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:04am

Re: 'Skins Schedule:

Their next 6 games:
@Denver
@KC
SanFran
@Giants
Philly
@Tampa

I see that stretch as 1-5, or maybe 2-4 if their luck holds up.

21
by charles (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:17am

yes it's lucky when washington dominates time of possession for two of the three games they won and only turns the ball over once in each game. their defense only has five sacks and one or two turnovers this year, wait till they get started.

22
by EorrFU (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:32am

Wash best chance may be this weekend. Denver is way better but Wash is a bad matchup for them. The good run defence and heavy blitzing will screw up the offense of the Broncos. The Was defensive line is under-rated as run stoppers and anything that screws up the Snake's timing leads to poor decisions. The Denver defense is prone to giving up some big plays on passing. Also, they are a little bi weaker at runs up the middle which of course is was preference. The denver speed will keep too many big plays on running especially around the tackles.

I still think denver wins but the line of -7 is too much. I say this game seems like 17-13 type of matchup. Unless of course Was gets to plummer with some eccentric blitz packages. A scary game for Denver.

For the rest of the schedule I think San Fran and Tampa are the only winnable games for them.

23
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:33am

Re: 21

Yet despite their 'dominance', their DVOA ranks 21st. Curious.

No offense intended. As a Redskin favorite is known to say, you are what your record says you are - and the 'skins are 3-0. I don't think it will continue, but what do I know.

In all likelihood, one of the 'other' NFC east teams (Washington, NY, Dallas) will make the playoffs. Maybe it will be Washington.

24
by EorrFU (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:46am

Is anyone else confused with Cle -3 over the Bears? What a wierd line... The Chi defense is going to demolish the browns. The offense is anemic but I think that defense could score enough to win this game.

25
by Loose On the Lead (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 10:52am

Yet despite their ‘dominance’, their DVOA ranks 21st. Curious.

I'm one who thinks the Redskins are fortunate to be 3-0. At the same time, I'm kinda wondering if DVOA really captures what Joe Gibbs wants from his offense. He likes long, drawn-out, time-consuming drives. While he certainly doesn't mind big plays from his RBs, the run play-calling seems oriented towards getting just enough for the first down in three tries.

With that in mind, look at Clinton Portis's RB stats. Per DPAR and DVOA, he's nothing special. Yet his success rate is pretty high, and that's the thing. I'm not sure that this isn't an indication that Portis is doing what Gibbs wants him to do...and Gibbs does have a history of fielding good offenses, last year notwithstanding.

Am I crazy or what? If there's anything to my little theory, then the Skins' run DVOA ranking probably underrates them somewhat.

26
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 11:01am

Aaron, if you don’t mind, how strong are the opposition adjustments currently

40%. It's at the top of the page, Kibbles! :)

They increase 10% per week.

27
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 11:11am

Washington is "The Land that Pythagoras Forgot."

Several months ago, the Nationals were in the lead in the NL East (by quite a few), and all the guys over at Baseball Prospectus were pointing to the run differential and saying "This ain't gonna hold up." And it didn't.

Now, the Redskins are in the lead in the NFC East, and we're pointing at the point differential (and the estimated wins) and saying "This ain't gonna hold up." And it won't.

However, that 3-0 start is going to go a long way to helping them with a wild card spot, though I'm not sure if 9-7 will take it in the NFC this year.

28
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 11:16am

I knew philly’s special teams were struggling but not that much. I might need to start Willie Ponder at receiver when they play the eagles.

Honestly, I wouldn't. Philly's special teams struggles are coming from two reasons:

1) Loss of David Akers, and adjusting to a new kicker

2) Really sucky kick/punt returns.

I'd even go so far as to say that the Hall kick return could be credited to #1: That was France's second kickoff. Anyway, #1 will probably settle down after this week. #2 will probably stay pretty consistent, though.

29
by Barbara Gorton (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 11:23am

No comment about the Steelers? I've been told they have the most loyal fans, and fans are all over the US and...I know I'm one. Ben is for real, the team is gellin'and will get to the big bowl this year one game at a time.

30
by Dan (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:02pm

Keyshawn was terrible in that game. He brought Drew down.

31
by Johnnyel (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:07pm

Re: the Redskins
As a DC dweller, and having watched all three games so far this year, I have to say they seem like a fraudulent 3-0. Yes, the wins still count, but two of them came after bad officiating on particularly important plays (a blown holding call and a phantom interference call), and the Chicago win was anything but dominant for a home opener. Nothing the team has done on either side of the ball has impressed me so far.
My theory is that the offense is good enough to grind some clock and get about a field goal each quarter, and the defense is good enough to keep the other side to average productivity (considering the time of possession). This means the games stay close and one big play can win (or lose) the game, which would be a great game plan for the 2004 Falcons, but I'm pretty sure the genie told Mark Brunnel that he could only get three wishes this year.

32
by steelershomer (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:16pm

No comment about the Steelers?

They have a good team. We'll know more after the Cincinnati game.

33
by Jerry P. (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:18pm

"Buddy Love?! That couldn’t have been a Kids in the hall reference, but I have no idea what it meant."

Professor Klump's alter-ego in "The Nutty Professor" (Eddie Murphy version).

"WEIGHTED DVOA doesn’t work at this point, the equation tosses out those wacko numbers, and I forgot to remove them when I was hurrying to get things together Monday. I’ll clean those tables up later this week."

Buffalo's weighted offense looked about right at -10,000%.

34
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:21pm

Re: 24

Both teams have the same record and played similarly against their one common opponent. Cleveland is favored presumably because their at home.

Certainly Chicago's defense has looked very good so far this year. But it's tough to count on the D regularly putting points on the board. I'd expect this to be a very low scoring conservative game (similar to NYJ vs. Ravens). If either team gets ahead by two scores it's probably over.

Net, yeah I'd take the Bears and the points but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

35
by chris (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:40pm

re: Redskins

They ARE Fraudulent!! I didn't see all the Chicago game, but they only one by two points. I did see all the Dallas game, and the Cowboys missed an easy field goal earlier to win the game which the 'Skins won by 1 pt. Then I saw the Seahawks miss two field goals (one in the last minute) that would have one the game. So I have to say that YES, the 'Skins "dominance" is going to run out. The other teams kickers will start to not miss and the 'Skins are done for. They suck. Gibbs too.

36
by max (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:43pm

So I guess I should read this as saying the Seahawks ranked 9 v. the Rams ranked 24 is a total mismatch this week. Hey I can get 3 pts with Seattle. Why do I feel that's a dumb bet?

I've got to be missing something here. Or is it that DVOA doesn't work when these two teams play?

37
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 12:59pm

about the skins and there lucky wins,

if the team is only giving up 1 touch a game they are gonna be in every game...you get exactly "0" chancs to screw up on offense against them before you lose

They're defense is too god and is the actual best defense in the league as any O coordinator who has to face them will tell you. 3.1 dvoa...its only that way because they dont cause turnovers..they make up for it by not making any mental mistakes

held pit and philly to 16 last year...you've been warned

38
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:01pm

re: 27
note enough games in football

every year a bunch of teams will slip through the cracks because they only plya 16 games

39
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:04pm

re35

chris,
Yes, missed figgies are what happen when you have to kick them from 45 plus.

40
by Christopher (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:09pm

RE: Redskins

Chris is off his rocker! Dallas is a good team. Chicago is a good team. Seattle is a good team. Washington legitimately won each of those games, though not by too much, so that makes Washington a good team!

The defense is one of the best in the league (and Greg Williams the best Defensive Coordinator in the league), and the offense does enough to keep it close every game.

Portis may not be getting the kind of numbers you like much, but, having seen him play, he is a great RB, and he does exactly what is needed.

The only thing holding the Redskins back is the incompetence of Joe Gibbs, and he seems to be figuring out enough not to lose these games.

41
by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 1:50pm

Chicago is a good team? Well, if 5-11 counts as good, sure. Seattle is a good team (In Seattle). Dallas, well, Dallas is an 8-8 team, just like Washington.

42
by M (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:06pm

For most of his prior tenure, didn't Joe Gibbs outperform his pythagorean projections most of the time? I am not sure of the coefficient to use (I am using 2.7 for the #'s below).

(The text below get's smushed)
Year ActW PythW Diff
1981 8 7.9 -0.1
1982 8 6.7 -1.3
1983 14 12.6 -1.4
1984 11 11.2 0.2
1985 10 7.5 -2.5
1986 12 10.3 -1.7
1987 11 10.3 -0.7
1988 7 6.8 -0.2
1989 10 10.4 0.4
1990 10 10.5 0.5
1991 14 14.2 0.2
1992 9 9.7 0.7

In the years BR (Before Rypien), the Redskings were 7.7 wins better than predicted; after they were 1.8 worse. I believe Rypien wasn't as clutch as some of his prior QB's, but because of throwing a great deep ball, they were often able to get a big lead and rub it in. Still, I think the difference is startling.

Nevertheless, does this support the argument of him being good in close games?

43
by adam (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:43pm

Re Eagles and "Really sucky kick/punt returns," no one talks about the freak offseason injury to J.R. Reid. He really made a difference last year.

44
by elhondo (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 2:52pm

Re: #42

I don't know - it seems a stretch to assume that Gibbs' traits are translatable from earlier teams. Maybe there's something to it, but I think it's more likely to be caused by coincidence.

It'd be interesting to hear what theories people would come up with to why they are the same though.

45
by Richie (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 3:18pm

Well, DVOA has the Dolphins right next to Indy in the rankings. I'm a Dolphins fan, but I sure have a hard time believing that Miami would even be competitive against Indy.

46
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 3:26pm

no. 41
B,
Those "non -statistical" projections for playoff teams I put out earlier are holding pretty true eh?

Chicago will be at least 9-7 if not better.

They have played two undefeated teams although neither is top 5. One of which is not getting credit enough for playing footall the out school way. That is they are converting third and shorts all over place becasue they run it for 6 yards on the first two downs and are rarely penalized.

Chicago creamed Detroit at home, something TB was not able to do. Yet I'm sure you would state TB is a much better team than Chicago.

Seattle is also playing very well and look to be much improved this year over last year's version. I guess it will take the rest of the season for that to play out.

47
by Richie (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 3:29pm

Aaron, you know I've appreciated everything you've done here. Love the site. Love the stats, everything.

I understand going where the money is (FOX). I understand lack of time.

But, I just wanted to express that I miss the old DVOA articles. The team-by-team snippets on FOX just don't do it for me. I like when you really talk about your calculations, and talk out-loud about your thought process, etc.

I've done things before where I need to make a small comment on every game, and sometimes you just can't think of anything good to put in there. I know that.

I'd much rather read stuff like this from last year: There are a number of reasons why the Rams are a bit of an enigma this season. First of all, if you remember from reading Football Outsiders in the past, the Rams have been pretty much misunderstood by everyone over the past few seasons. Their defense has been one of the best in football each year, while their offense declined from the juggernaut of 2001 to mediocrity.

Than stuff like this:
What if Peyton Manning were a soap opera character? "That bump on my head restored my memory! Touchdown passes — that's what I'm famous for! Why, throwing touchdowns feels so natural that I will toss four of them against the Titans! That was easy, but my next opponent may put up more of a fight."

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way. Take this as somebody who is much more interested in your in-depth analysis than in your lowest-common-denominator comments.

I know that I can get my money back if I'm not satisfied.

48
by Björn (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 4:01pm

RE: #36

I have 2 things to say about the Seattle Seahawks.

1- Never ever ever bet against them, because they can come out of nowhere and make you pay.

2- Never ever ever bet on them, because they are good to gas about 6 or 7 spreads every year.

Trust me. I can't even count the number of times Seattle has screwed me in the last 5 years.

49
by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 4:03pm

Ritchie:
"Special thanks to Mike Tanier for writing some of this week's comments and finishing up the ratings after Monday Night Football."
You're giving the wrong guy credit for this week's ratings.
Personally, I love this week's Colts comment.

50
by Israel (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 4:22pm

I haven't figured out where the comments to the foxsports.com stuff, so I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

Mike and Aaron wrote "Todd France belongs on a team with Reggie Germany and Darius Holland, but he may not belong in the NFL. Hey, Kathy Ireland was a pretty good kicker in Necessary Roughness"

Howcom no mention of Ron mexico?

51
by Aaron (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 4:32pm

Richie, The rambling essays on just one or two teams will return, even if we also do the comment on each team in the ratings. FOX has no problem with that style. But with Rosh Hashanah this week, and Mike having to do a large part of the writing, I thought that a comment per team was a better choice.

52
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 5:38pm

For most of his prior tenure, didn’t Joe Gibbs outperform his pythagorean projections most of the time? I am not sure of the coefficient to use (I am using 2.7 for the #’s below).

It's 2.37, not 2.7. Not sure which one you used, but that'd uniformly pull the projections up (higher exponent on a number less than 1 means a smaller number), so that'll account for some of it.

53
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 6:14pm

Cleveland is giving 3 to Chicago because they're an AFC team hosting an NFC team with the same record. So far Cleveland has looked pretty decent, while there are sure to be some growing pains they'll probably win 6 or 7 games this year. If they were in the NFC they'd win 9.

Let's say Washington only does go 2-4 over their next 6 games. That still leaves them at 5-4, likely needing a 4-3 stretch to make the playoffs. That's certainly doable. They may not be the Colts, but 3-0 is still 3-0, and in the NFC that may be all it takes.

54
by CJFarls (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 6:41pm

Re: 'skins
Definite frauds... as a 'Skins fan, I can say watching the games this year has been painful. Should've lost all 3, except the teams we played are just as incompetant. Gotta love our Defense though. Though the 'skins D matches up well with the Broncos, they won't steal one on the road. 'Skins offense won't score more than a couple field goals.

55
by Jon (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 7:45pm

As a skins fan living in dc, rooting for them as long as I can remember I would have to disagree with all of you saying that the skins are fraudulent. Everyone said they would never beat the Cowboys, and they did. The defense has performed great in every game, and in their division they stand the best shot to win. Dallas, NYG or Philly is NOT looking much better than them if at all. Dallas will continue to slide, McNabb will get hurt again and NYG wont win forever. If you look rationally the Skins are right in it.

56
by thad (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:47am

last year the skins converted 32% of their 3rd down attempts.
This year they are converting 49%.
We will see how long that lasts.

57
by Christopher (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:13am

Re:Redskins

It is in no way, shape, or form fraudulent to win close games against quality opponents. The teams the Redskins played are not incompetent because they failed to play perfectly for sixty minutes -even the Dallas win was entirely legitimate as based on the general flow of the game, they should have already had those scores, which negates any penalty for the fluky way the Redskins did get them.

Before the season I predicted the Redskins would go 10-6, even though

I knew of each and every problem they have shown this year, and probably overestimated those problems, because the Redskins are simply a good team.

The defense, led by the great defensive coordinaor Greg Williams, is the best in the league.

The offense controls the tempo of the game -if they Redskins are ahead at any time in the second half they can end the game, and if they need to score, they can speed it way up. The offense isn't great, but they are exactly what the Redskins need (would be better with a different QB though).

RE#56,

There seems to be one simple difference on third downs this year. This year, it's not alwayss third and ten.

58
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:35am

"It is in no way, shape, or form fraudulent to win close games against quality opponents"
-See 2004 Jags, 2001 Bears, 1998 Cardinals.

59
by Mike M (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 11:15am

NEXT: vs. the undefeated (sic) Bengals.

I just wanted to say that this is quite likely the funniest thing I've ever read about football.

Bravo!

60
by james (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:21pm

re: skins,

You people have 0 IQ or watch too much of Sean Salisbury.

Let me break it down.

Avg NFL team avgs about 20 points per game.

Therefore is you score more than 20 or hold opponents under 20 you will probably win that game.

What have the skins done this year? Not allowed 20 points.

What is their record 3-0.

What do the football gods owe the skins?

About 6 wins from last year where they held opponents under 20 and still lost.

"Third downs don't correlate from year to year"(Aaron, FootballOutsiders).

So you can throw that argument out.

You people who thought the skins were gonna suck are the same people who though Minny would be good.

Learn something besides what you are hand fed and then you will be able to talk football.

61
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:31pm

Well, that would work if the Skins had an average NFL offense.

62
by kyle (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 1:52pm

who has the bigger game this weekend? Gus Frerotte against the Bills, or Josh McCown against the Panthers?

i don't think we see Kurt again this season.

63
by Ray (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 2:22pm

Looks like Aaron just put up an article to crush the fantasies of all the Redskins fans here. It's okay to tell yourselves that the Redskins are a great team. Just don't mind the 'we told you so' when it all comes crashing down. ;^)

64
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 4:52pm

It is in no way, shape, or form fraudulent to win close games against quality opponents.

Tell that to the baseball team from Washington, who made the exact same argument early in the season.

And finished in last place in their division.

65
by DavidH (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 5:03pm

You people have 0 IQ or watch too much of Sean Salisbury.
Let me break it down.
Avg NFL team avgs about 20 points per game.
Therefore is you score more than 20 or hold opponents under 20 you will probably win that game.
What have the skins done this year? Not allowed 20 points.
What is their record 3-0.
What do the football gods owe the skins?
About 6 wins from last year where they held opponents under 20 and still lost.

Let's play a little game I like to call "the other side of the coin."

You person have 0 IQ or don't watch enough of Sean Salisbury.
Let me break it down.
Avg NFL team avgs about 20 points per game.
Therefore is you score less than 20 or hold opponents above 20 you will probably lose that game.
What have the skins done this year? Only scored 20 points once.
What is their record 3-0.
What do the football gods owe the skins?
About 2 losses from this year and 3 losses from last year where they scored less than 20 and still won.

66
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 6:04pm

DavidH:

Good point - but man, that post was unreadable. :)

67
by Richie (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:02pm

against Dallas, they should have already had those scores, which negates any penalty for the fluky way the Redskins did get them.

What does this mean?

My recollection of the game was that the Washington offense was completely pathetic, aside from two long TD's late in the game.

68
by Richie (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:04pm

I'm confused. Is Sean Salisbury a DVOA guy?

69
by thad (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:07pm

Christopher,
Why in god's name would you think that the skins have the best defense in the league?

70
by Reinhard (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 1:15pm

Did anyone notice how well Tennesse kept Freeney out of the backfield?

71
by Jon (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 10:22pm

The redskins do have one of if not the best defense in the league. As the season continues everyone will see it play out. The problem here is fans of other teams are simply unwilling to give credit where it is due. NO team in the NFL this year is dominant. The playing field is pretty level. Indy is doing well but nowhere near dominant. Tampa is not dominant. This is going to be a good year, and the redskins will be competitive.