Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

SprolesDar05.jpg

» Clutch Encounters: Week 2

The Eagles horse-collar the Colts in Monday night stunner. Also: Chicago's rope-a-dope, the end of Seattle's streaks, and a comeback 22 years in the making in Green Bay.

03 Oct 2006

Week 5 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

Commentary now available on FOXSports.com. This week, we add opponent adjustments for the first time. I'm also doing the full tables for the first time, including estimated wins, variance, past schedule, and future schedule. How about the Chiefs jumping so high? You gotta love those early blowouts.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through Week 4 of 2006, 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 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 TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season.

DAVE is the new 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. This is the rating used to rank teams at FOXSports.com. After Week 4, the preseason projection counts for 57.5% of the rating. (DAVE stands for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.")

To save people some time, please use the zlionsfan template 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
SPECIAL
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
1 CHI 51.4% 3 28.7% 2 63.5% 4-0 15.3% 6 -25.3% 4 10.8% 1
2 SD 50.5% 1 34.1% 1 69.0% 2-1 14.1% 8 -33.3% 2 3.0% 9
3 BAL 41.7% 2 18.0% 7 56.9% 4-0 -6.9% 20 -42.6% 1 6.0% 4
4 PHI 41.0% 4 24.8% 3 40.7% 3-1 26.6% 1 -11.9% 9 2.6% 10
5 KC 37.9% 21 20.7% 6 39.5% 1-2 -0.3% 16 -28.2% 3 10.0% 2
6 DAL 33.2% 14 13.2% 9 33.1% 2-1 19.3% 3 -18.3% 7 -4.4% 27
7 WAS 18.2% 13 9.9% 10 16.2% 2-2 16.4% 4 2.6% 18 4.3% 5
8 STL 15.1% 9 -7.3% 19 31.9% 3-1 5.2% 10 -9.8% 11 0.1% 15
9 NO 14.7% 5 -8.8% 21 19.1% 3-1 4.6% 11 -9.2% 12 0.9% 14
10 IND 14.6% 10 22.5% 4 22.6% 4-0 24.4% 2 8.9% 25 -0.9% 16
11 NE 11.7% 15 9.3% 11 13.1% 3-1 15.1% 7 7.2% 23 3.8% 6
12 BUF 11.5% 11 -8.1% 20 8.6% 2-2 1.8% 12 -7.7% 14 2.0% 11
13 CIN 9.9% 6 15.6% 8 8.4% 3-1 1.4% 13 -5.4% 15 3.0% 8
14 JAC 8.1% 7 6.3% 15 7.2% 2-2 -1.3% 17 -12.6% 8 -3.2% 25
15 ATL 6.9% 20 8.2% 12 23.3% 3-1 -9.6% 22 -24.0% 5 -7.5% 32
16 NYG 5.6% 16 3.9% 17 3.0% 1-2 16.3% 5 9.8% 27 -0.9% 17
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
LAST
WEEK
DAVE RANK NON-ADJ
TOT VOA
W-L OFFENSE
DVOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
DVOA
DEF.
RANK
SPECIAL
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
17 CAR -2.4% 22 5.8% 16 -5.1% 2-2 1.0% 14 4.9% 22 1.5% 13
18 NYJ -3.4% 12 -16.4% 25 -1.3% 2-2 8.8% 9 13.8% 28 1.5% 12
19 MIN -3.7% 19 -12.3% 23 -12.5% 2-2 -12.4% 23 -10.2% 10 -1.6% 20
20 PIT -4.3% 17 7.6% 14 -12.5% 1-2 -18.4% 28 -21.4% 6 -7.3% 30
21 SEA -5.2% 8 21.1% 5 -5.2% 3-1 -12.6% 25 -8.8% 13 -1.4% 19
22 DEN -6.8% 23 8.1% 13 -13.4% 2-1 -4.7% 19 -5.3% 16 -7.4% 31
23 MIA -15.1% 24 -6.2% 18 4.1% 1-2 -17.3% 27 -4.4% 17 -2.2% 21
24 CLE -15.3% 28 -11.1% 22 -22.8% 1-3 -15.0% 26 7.5% 24 7.2% 3
25 DET -19.8% 25 -13.0% 24 -26.9% 0-4 0.4% 15 17.1% 29 -3.1% 24
26 GB -23.4% 26 -17.2% 26 -26.9% 1-2 -12.6% 24 4.2% 20 -6.6% 29
27 SF -32.2% 18 -27.9% 29 -37.8% 1-3 -7.0% 21 22.4% 30 -2.7% 23
28 TB -33.3% 29 -17.5% 27 -42.0% 0-3 -27.9% 29 4.4% 21 -1.0% 18
29 HOU -38.7% 30 -28.1% 30 -36.9% 1-3 -2.8% 18 39.0% 32 3.1% 7
30 ARI -44.6% 27 -32.0% 31 -38.9% 1-3 -29.6% 30 9.7% 26 -5.3% 28
31 OAK -50.1% 32 -26.8% 28 -67.4% 0-3 -43.5% 32 4.1% 19 -2.5% 22
32 TEN -62.3% 31 -36.5% 32 -61.6% 0-4 -31.7% 31 26.7% 31 -4.0% 26

  • 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.
  • 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 VARIANCE RANK
1 CHI 51.4% 4-0 3.6 1 -17.4% 28 -10.1% 32 4.0% 28
2 SD 50.5% 2-1 3.1 4 -17.7% 29 -4.4% 25 10.9% 13
3 BAL 41.7% 4-0 3.5 2 -16.1% 26 -0.4% 18 10.3% 14
4 PHI 41.0% 3-1 3.5 3 -22.2% 30 4.6% 10 0.2% 32
5 KC 37.9% 1-2 2.9 5 -7.3% 23 -2.1% 21 51.6% 2
6 DAL 33.2% 2-1 2.8 7 -9.0% 25 0.7% 16 23.8% 4
7 WAS 18.2% 2-2 2.6 9 -0.4% 15 6.1% 8 13.6% 8
8 STL 15.1% 3-1 2.4 11 -25.9% 31 -0.7% 19 13.1% 9
9 NO 14.7% 3-1 2.4 10 -8.5% 24 4.3% 11 18.8% 6
10 IND 14.6% 4-0 2.8 6 -7.1% 22 -4.3% 24 4.2% 27
11 NE 11.7% 3-1 2.3 12 2.8% 13 -8.0% 27 7.9% 17
12 BUF 11.5% 2-2 2.3 13 -2.6% 18 1.3% 14 4.7% 25
13 CIN 9.9% 3-1 2.2 15 7.5% 11 4.8% 9 17.5% 7
14 JAC 8.1% 2-2 2.0 18 26.7% 1 -8.2% 28 20.5% 5
15 ATL 6.9% 3-1 2.7 8 -16.4% 27 7.4% 4 59.0% 1
16 NYG 5.6% 1-2 2.2 14 12.6% 9 7.4% 5 2.9% 29
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
W-L ESTIM.
WINS
RANK PAST
SCHED
RANK FUTURE
SCHED
RANK VARIANCE RANK
17 CAR -2.4% 2-2 2.1 17 -3.8% 19 11.1% 2 10.9% 12
18 NYJ -3.4% 2-2 1.7 22 -6.1% 21 -8.2% 29 6.6% 20
19 MIN -3.7% 2-2 2.1 16 19.7% 3 -9.1% 31 1.2% 30
20 PIT -4.3% 1-2 1.9 19 1.0% 14 6.2% 7 11.0% 11
21 SEA -5.2% 3-1 1.9 20 -1.9% 17 -9.0% 30 10.0% 15
22 DEN -6.8% 2-1 1.8 21 16.2% 7 0.3% 17 5.9% 23
23 MIA -15.1% 1-2 1.4 24 -31.3% 32 7.2% 6 4.8% 24
24 CLE -15.3% 1-3 1.2 26 5.4% 12 4.1% 12 6.2% 22
25 DET -19.8% 0-4 1.2 25 12.6% 8 -0.9% 20 4.5% 26
26 GB -23.4% 1-2 1.4 23 21.8% 2 -3.2% 23 9.1% 16
27 SF -32.2% 1-3 1.1 27 12.3% 10 -2.3% 22 47.2% 3
28 TB -33.3% 0-3 1.1 29 -1.3% 16 14.0% 1 6.9% 19
29 HOU -38.7% 1-3 1.0 30 19.5% 4 -7.7% 26 0.6% 31
30 ARI -44.6% 1-3 1.1 28 -3.9% 20 3.9% 13 6.3% 21
31 OAK -50.1% 0-3 0.5 31 19.2% 5 0.8% 15 7.7% 18
32 TEN -62.3% 0-4 0.0 32 16.3% 6 8.1% 3 11.3% 10

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 03 Oct 2006

239 comments, Last at 07 Oct 2006, 5:42pm by Mike

Comments

1
by IsaiahC (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:05pm

first. Glad to see a little love for the Cowboys. Just a little. :)

2
by tunesmith (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:08pm

I'll have the beatpaths power rankings up pretty soon, also. I found something interesting that should have been clear to me but hasn't been - each week's beatpaths power rankings "retroactively picks" all the games for the season so far with the best possible percentage. For instance, this week's upcoming power rankings are 56-4 for the first four weeks of the season.

3
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:16pm

Question.
Does anybody follow the Rams?
Are they really this good?
I have not seen them play at all this year so was wondering if others thought of them as a real playoff contender.

4
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:20pm

Also,
I know its very early, but the Ravens defense is playing as well as they did in 2000 according to DVOA.

5
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:22pm

Vanderjack sucks. Its week 5 and I want to cut him.

6
by NF (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:22pm

2: aren't beatpath rankings designed to do that?

7
by paytonrules (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:23pm

I realize I'm a crazy Bears homer...buuuuuuuuuuuuuut

given their schedule....

Shouldn't the Bears be 10-0 by the time they play New England (in NE)? And if they win that doozy it's only the Rams between them and perfection.

I love this Kool-Aid - here have some.

8
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:24pm

Finally,
When did KC get a defense?
How did I miss this?

9
by David (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:32pm

And if they win that doozy it’s only the Rams between them and perfection.

That, the Any Given Sunday factor, the possibility of Rex Grossman crashing back to earth for a game or two, and the simple possibility that, even if they run the table, there won't be another NFC team within two or three games of them by the end of the season, leading Lovie Smith to give the starters a Christmas vacation.

10
by zip (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:34pm

#2, #6

I think he's saying, he never realized the beatpath algorithm actually finds the optimal solution instead of just a good one.

11
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:41pm

I'm curious to see what the contents of the asterix next to the SD #1 are going to be.

12
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:43pm

I watched a good deal of the second halves of the Rams last two games, mainly as I was interested to see what kind of systems they were running after the Denver game. Their offense still has several top notch players in (Holt, Pace) and some others who are playing very well (Barron, Bruce, Bulger, Jackson) but under Linehan it is not all so frantic and the passing game aims to tick over and take what is given as opposed to Martz's attempts to score every down. The result is more consistent production, albeit less axplosive. I think it suits Bulger betteras his biggest boon as a QB is his ability to get rid of the ball quickly, his rapid distribution combines well with a power running between the tackles approach. In all their offense should be pretty good, I still don't think a great deal of their defense it isn't stromg enough up front and their coverage is average at best (it will help them imensely if Tye Hill can step up), although Little is still a top end pass rusher.

They may be 3-1 but should have lost to the Cards (one fumbled snap away) and ended up in a shootout with Detroit of all teams. They could easily be 1-3 and if Denver had turned up, maybe worse. As it is they should really be 2-2 but Arizona kept a quarterback with a concussion in the game when they needed to run the clock out.

13
by Fnor (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:43pm

KC's D looked pretty good as early as the Bengals game: their main problem there was bad scheming (or lack of preparedness) for Palmer's no-huddle.

14
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:56pm

mmmmmmmnn Kool Aid

15
by max (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:57pm

#3 thad,

I follow the Rams VERY closely. They are the best kept secret in the NFL right now. Jim Haslett has clearly improved the D from the mess of the last few years. They still have problems stopping the run but they are extremely opportunistic with a +10 Turnover differential. They have added playmakers where they had weakness before. According to a recent PFW article, Will Witherspoon is playing the best MLB in the NFC right now and that includes Urlacker.

The Rams have big time weapons on offense, with Stephen Jackson and Torry Holt probably the best RB/WR threat in the NFC. And Marc Bulger has yet to throw an INT in Scott Linehan's low risk offense scheme.

Are they a serious contender? We will find out in 2 weeks when they play the Seahawks in St. Louis.

16
by underthebus (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:57pm

#13 #8 is it because of Ty Law?

17
by frank13 (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 9:58pm

Denver at 13, NO at 21, and Pit at 14.

I suppose simply pointing those three out is enough to condem this ridiculous system.

18
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:03pm

I have a question in the light of reported comments that officiating blunders may have resulted in a two hundred yard and twenty-one point swing from the 49ers in the Eagles game. Do big officiating mistakes ever get factored into DVOA? (I am suspecting not, as if the league does make such admissions it does it privately)

To avoid any acrimony I am merely asking the question, not trying to wind up Eagles fans.

19
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:04pm

New Orleans is #9.

20
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:05pm

For those who don't remember from before, there's a simple warning sign for ridiculous DVOA defenses early in the season: if the success of a team's defense has been primarily turnovers, they're a paper tiger. It's happened every year since 2003 so far: you can't blame DVOA for it all that much, because it didn't know that Cincinnati wouldn't keep up that interception pace last year.

This year's paper tigers? I'd say both San Diego and Baltimore. They're both way off the deep end on defense, and both of them are way above the rest of the league in terms of turnovers as well, thanks to the Great Turnover Machine that is Oakland's offense.

21
by Jay B. (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:06pm

I'm amazed that the opponent adjustments haven't hurt the Eagles. After Week Three they were ranked fourth in total VOA at 45.4%. After Week Four they're fourth in total DVOA, at 41.0. Their best opponent so far has been the 16th-ranked Giants. What gives?

22
by Fnor (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:08pm

Pat: Indeed. That's precisely why I'm not so scared of the Ravens as I am the Bengals... and why Cincinatti's loss this week was immensely relieving and Baltimore's win didn't really make me all that concerned.

23
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:09pm

James:

You do have to remember, while individual plays make a difference in the score, they make much less of a difference in DVOA. It wouldn't matter much anyway. DVOA isn't about trying to predict the score. Points are why a team wins. DVOA is how a team wins.

24
by max (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:09pm

#12

The Rams deserved to win against the Cards. The Rams outplayed the Cards up until Bulger fumbled the snap and then Warner fumbled it right back. Take away those 2 fumbles and its the Rams game.

Denver turned the ball over 5 times. How many teams win with a -5 TO difference? How about zero.

Detroit game was a shootout. It was Martz revenge game. Lots of fun. Best team won.

Rams lost to the Niners by a TD. And they deserved to lose that game, although Pace got knocked out with a concussion and threw their OLine out of wack.

Rams are 3-1 and should be 3-1.

If this team wore a big star on its helmets, they'd be getting a lot more love.

25
by NF (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:11pm

Tennessee has 0.0 expected wins. That is impressive.

26
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:17pm

And incidentally: it was not a 21 point swing for the 49ers. At most it was a 14 point swing, and even that I don't buy, as it wasn't like it was 3rd down on the catch, either. Whether or not Patterson was down, Gore fumbled the ball, so they definitely weren't getting a touchdown there.

27
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:18pm

I like how San Diego's played three games, and it has 3.1 estimated wins.

28
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:23pm

#24

I actually thought I was giving the Rams some love. I think the move from Martz to Linehan is a good one, steadier offensive production and a power running game should help some of the young defensive players by taking pressure off them. I meant to include something about the Rams having a decent shot at the playoffs after this start due to being in a weak division, but I forgot.

NB
Whatever PFW writes there is no way that Witherspoon is playing better than Urlacher (however you choose to spell it).

29
by jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:24pm

it sure does seem like KC has played one great game against a terrible team and two mediocre games against good teams. But hey thats just me

30
by MRH (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:25pm

#8 - check out last year's ratings. Chiefs D was #12 and #5 weighted. There were doubters that those DVOA numbers were any good but the defense last year was clearly improved. With the replacement of Warfield, now out of football, by Ty Law (even if he's only ok and not All-Pro); the continued development of Derrick Johnson; and the addition of two more high draft picks, it's not a big surprise. If the Chiefs' D continues to do well the bobbleheads will credit Edwards and his emphasis on defense. But FO saw it coming...

31
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:25pm

I like how San Diego’s played three games, and it has 3.1 estimated wins.

All the bye week teams are prorated to have played the same number of games as the non-bye week teams.

32
by Doug (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:26pm

These rankings are crazy. Seattle is 21st? My rankings have them at #4...I know there's a "post-super bowl-losing curse" but to put them a mere 4 places ahead of winless Detroit seems to sneeze in the face of reason. Seattle's only loss was to my #3 Chicago Bears...I don't think that's any reason to dump them so early in the season...

33
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:28pm

Why can't people read? Seattle isn't 21st. They're 5th. It's even highlighted in blue.

They're 21st in 2006 performance. Big deal. Only 4 games so far, and it's not like they've played well in any of them.

34
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:34pm

If the Chiefs offense was always going to come around due to draft pick investment, wasn't it a really dumb time for Vermeil to retire and throw the whole coaching staff out of kilter. One more year and he would have had all the pieces of the puzzle in place and might have had a shot at convincing Roaf to play one more year.

35
by Parker (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:35pm

The Rams beat Denver, Arizona and Detroit and lost to SF. Lets keep our heads, people.

If their TO DIFF is really +10 (I have no reason to doubt you) and they were a good to very good team, they would have been blowing people out, not winning by 8, 2 and 7.

I love the Rams, but I'm not buying it yet. Maybe I am just being cautious with my heart.

36
by James C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:35pm

Chiefs' defense. bugger

37
by Jim (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:37pm

#20

I fail to see how San Diego is well above the rest of the league in turnovers. Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Indy all force more turnovers per game and they are tied with the Jets, Chiefs, and Steelers for 2nd in that category.

38
by Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:42pm

#34

Everything but that part about Roaf (dubious) applies to pretty much every year Vermeil was here.

39
by Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:42pm

#34

Everything but that part about Roaf (dubious) applies to pretty much every year Vermeil was here.

40
by Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:44pm

I know Aaron said something about tweaking the Chiefs and Bucs pre-season projections for the starting QB going down, but does anyone know if that went into DAVE?

41
by Andrew (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:45pm

James C #18:

reported comments that officiating blunders may have resulted in a two hundred yard and twenty-one point swing from the 49ers in the Eagles game

Well, you riled me up. What blunders, so we can discuss?

Pat #26:

Whether or not Patterson was down

Patterson was not down! For the love of God (and this isn't really directed at you Pat, because I know you know better) - just because a player is kneeling on another player when picking up the ball (or making a catch), he is not down by contact unless the defender downs him by tackling or touching him while he was kneeling. A touch only counts as down by contact when it is a conscious act of the defender - i.e. deliberately made with the hands or arms. Being kneeled on is not deliberate contact by the defender with the intent to down the ball carrier. Got it? The NFL is not the NCAA where you are down once you are on the ground in possession of the ball.

42
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:45pm

You're not counting fumbles recovered by the offense, which DVOA does. That's an additional 3 fumbles for San Diego.

43
by Mannie Fresh (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:49pm

Isn't it scary how week after week reporters and experts claim new Chicago Bears players are defensive player of the year candidates? First it started with Urlacher winning it again, then Lance Briggs because of his phenom skills as a weak-side LB. Now it's Tommie Harris, who leads the league with 5.0 sacks and his teammates claimed that he beat Steve Hutchinson (apparently the best O-linemen in the game) 'like a drum, he beat [Steve] like a drum'. Playin' againts the Bears D should give A LOT of teams the chills (no pun intended until January, when we play 'Hawks for a rematch in NFC Championship)

44
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:50pm

At what point does DAVE become more of a historical footnote to DVOA, that is, when does the actual performance this year dwarf projections in large part based upon measurements of last year's performance?

Also, I'd forgotten that estimated wins is based upon an average schedule. If a team has a real bifurcation in actual schedule strength, might this not play havoc with estimated wins' accuracy, especially at mid-season?

45
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:55pm

Now it’s Tommie Harris, who leads the league with 5.0 sacks

Tied for the league lead, thankyouverymuch.

46
by Mannie Fresh (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:55pm

PEOPLE get it through your brains...these rankings are not based on some dude who stayed up till 4 tryin to order the rankings...these are simply (well not that simple) mathimatical formulas to determine the rankings. I'm sure the folks at Football Outsiders aren't crazy to rank 'Hawks in the 20s even if the 'Superbowl Shuffle Remix' did humiliate them on national, primetime T.V. I'm sure if it was based upon opinions, the Bear's D would be ranked #1. The Raven's D is not in the same class as the Bears. Look who the faced to have a rankings of #1 D...a bunch of teams who can't buy a touchdown and a Chargers offense with Rivers in control of it.

47
by max (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:56pm

#28

Any love for the Rams would be a novelty around here. Just read Tannier's stuff in the Prospectus.

This from Dan Arkush of PFW on Oct. 3, 2006:
"As for Witherspoon, he’s been a revelation, defending both the run and the pass as well as any middle linebacker in the league, including the Bears’ Brian Urlacher."

I was surprised too. Arkush is a big Chicago guy. Home of PFW, right?

48
by Mannie Fresh (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:57pm

Sorry Pat...BUT....Tommie is comin out strong...

49
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 10:59pm

Any love for the Rams would be a novelty around here.

Yeah. I mean, there's only a plug for the Rams above the comment entry form. No one likes the Rams around here.

50
by max (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:00pm

#35

How many BAD teams have a TO DIFF of +10?

Doesn't make sense.

51
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:02pm

Sorry Pat…BUT….Tommie is comin out strong…

Hey, whatever! But until he passes all of the others at 5, he's tied for the league lead. :)

52
by Mannie Fresh (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:02pm

How can the Rams NOT score? With the weapons they have, scoring should be automatic. Well I still gotta spread love to the Rams. 3-1 is a good start for this franchise headin in the right direction. Bein tied with Seahawks in division isn't a bad thing either (i'm not sure how the tie breaker works when both teams are 3-1)...

53
by Mannie Fresh (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:05pm

We'll see that next week Pat...how strong is the Buffalo Bill's O-line? I heard they have replacements on it...it's gonna be a loooooong day for the youngin' Qb Losman (me not no how to speel his name) :(

54
by Richard (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:07pm

46: Rivers is 6th in DVOA.

55
by Ben (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:09pm

#25

Very Blutarsky-esque

56
by admin :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:12pm

Howdy folks. Team offense, defense, and special teams are now updated. So are individual stats. To answer a few questions:

Re: 18, I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to decide what counts as an officiating mistake. If a play is in the official stats, I use it.

Re: 30, I think I wrote in the preseason about the projection for improved defense in Kansas City. Ty Law is part of it, and they've drafted a ton of front seven talent in the past few years, and eventually that had to all mature.

Re: 32/33, some people think one rating demonstrates that I'm an idiot who knows nothing about football. Other people think that the other rating demonstrates that I'm an idiot who knows nothing about football. This is why we provide a choice -- so you can decide exactly why I'm an idiot who knows nothing about football, according to your personal preferences.

Re: 40, yes.

Re: 44, after Week 8. The preseason is worth 46% after Week 5, 32.5% after Week 6, 15% after Week 7.

57
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:15pm

44: Dave will be replaced with Weighted DVOA in Week 8, and then DAVE will return next year.

58
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:22pm

25: I'm just impressed they're ranked below Oakland. Although I suppose they have an advantage cause Oakland has only had three chances to suck and Tenn has had four.

59
by cdcox (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:29pm

Oh, man, all this stat stuff is making me horny. Oh yes, DAVE, aaaaahhhhh yeah baby, you know how I like it DAVE, oh yeah, harder.

60
by NewsToTom (not verified) :: Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:37pm

It's neat to see your team ranked last, and with 0.0 expected wins to boot. I wonder how much effect the illegal blcok in the back on Pacman Jones' punt return for TD had. Now the question is whether or not the Colts can beat them badly enough to avoid screwing up the ratings. For the record, I'm pretty sure the Raiders are worse.

61
by Jason McKinley (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:04am

Re: 35/50, In 1995 the Rams were +14 in turnovers after four games and were sitting at 4-0. They had nine interceptions, five fumble recoveries and ZERO offensive turnovers. Of course that wasn't sustainable, and they had won three of those four games by just 3, 4 and 6 points. When the turnovers started to even out, they got exposed. After a 5-1 start, they ended up 7-9. Because of that ancient history (well, Isaac Bruce probably remembers), I have a cautious wait-and-see kind of approach like Parker.

Regardless, I'm a fan and I'm optimistic (much more so than DAVE, anyway). I believe they can continue to improve this season and avoid a 1995-esque collapse. Here's hoping, anyway.

62
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:05am

Max #50:

How many BAD teams have a TO DIFF of +10?

How soon we forget the 1999 Ravens and 1999 Eagles.

63
by paytonrules (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:12am

These rankings are crazy. Seattle is 21st? My rankings have them at #4…I know there’s a “post-super bowl-losing curse�

This quote is awesome but it fails to follow the formula...

The Seahawks is clearly ranked too low because the post-super bowl-losing curse isn't real. MY PERSONAL RANKING SYSTEM is way better than this. Urlaker

Okay that last misspelling was unfair, I just think it's funny that somebody seems to think DVOA has the post-super bowl losers "curse" in it.

#47 two things - It's Hub Arkish not Dan. And "as well as" is not the same as "best linebacker and that includes Urlacher" Which is not to say the guy isn't playing very well. Hub does constant local radio in Chicago and he hasn't nominated anybody to unseat Urlacher as the best linebacker in the NFC.

#9 - such a buzz kill really. I like my plan better.

64
by Sergio (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:23am

I too am surprised that the Titans are below the Raiders in expected wins.

65
by Slippery Pete (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:26am

I'm a huge Rams fan, and I like to think I'm a rational one also. I've watched every Rams game this year except the 49ers game. (obviously that's why they lost)

#24: I have to reiterate what max said about how the Rams did deserve to win the Cardinals game. Before the Cardinals last drive where Warner inexplicably fumbled the ball, the Rams were trying to run out the clock and Bulger pulled a Warner and fumbled the RB/QB exchange. One dumb play deserves another.

#52: The Rams do score. The problem is that they score field goals, not touchdowns. The offense crawls once it gets in the red zone. The Rams have attempted 18 field goals. Atlanta is next with 16 and Chicago is third with 13. If the Rams can turn some of their field goals into touchdowns, they would have a top 5 offense. As it is their offense is 10th. The problem though is that Scott Linehan offenses have never been good in the red zone so I don't know if they can solve this problem unless they play the Lions 12 more times.

As to their defense, they have 8 interceptions which tied for first in the league. The have recovered 5 fumbles and lost 3, so they haven't had abnormal fumble luck. Leonard Little is still a good pass rusher, Jimmy Kennedy finally got his head out of his ass and has turned into a respectable player, Will Witherspoon has been great, Fahkir Brown (a random CB Jim Haslett brought with him from the Saints) has been solid, and Corey Chavous is playing OK too. Tye Hill has even chipped in with an interception. I think their secondary is average to above average. However, their run defense is subpar. Edgerrin James almost had 100 yards against them! (94 to be exact) All in all, their defense has gone from abysmal to average.

Their special teams also don't suck anymore.

Here's the Rams remaining schedule.
@ Green Bay
Seattle
BYE
@ San Diego
Kansas City
@ Seattle
@ Carolina
San Francisco
Arizona
Chicago
@ Oakland
Washington
@ Minnesota

I see 3 probable wins (SF, ARZ, OAK), 4 probable losses (@SD, @SEA, @CAR, CHI), 5 tossups (@GB, SEA, KC, WAS, @MIN).

Right now, I see the Rams as an 8-8 ball club. However, if they can win in Lambeau this weekend, and then beat Seattle next week, I'd pencil them in as a playoff club.

66
by Ralph (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:37am

How are you going to explain away the Bills this week?

67
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:41am

Since people are talking about turnover ratio, I guess I'll add that I'd love for someone to tackle the different ways defenses succeed and which types (field position, ball hawking, the Bears) are more are more consistent or work better against top teams.

I was introduced to the ball hawking D during the Chiefs 13-3 season. The offense put the pressure on teams to score and the D was able to reap the whirlwind for a while. Things seemed to fall apart once the Cinci game started. Maybe the Bengals stole their opportunistic karma, because they've had an INT-happy D for the past couple years. The Colts and the Lovie Smith Rams seemed to play a similar style.

I'm not sure who the more traditional style defense are anymore, though. The Ravens, maybe? Maybe the Cowboys, Bills, Skins, or Eagles. Teams that don't rely as much on forcing turnovers and seem to invest more in pricy defensive players.

68
by Jeremiah (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:45am

Interesting that the system always seems to like KC, regardless of their win percentage, and regardless of their style of play.

I wonder how much some of the top DVOA numbers are skewed by having disgustingly bad teams as opponents(Oakland, Tennessee, etc.). That is, how much will the opponent adjustment change in the next few weeks for those teams (un)fortunate enough to play against these creampuffs?

69
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:46am

Does anyone have a theory that tries to explain why the Rams stink in the red zone?

I assume it's because their offense was (is?) predicated on a wide open, deep passing attack, but now that they have a power back and new coaches, shouldn't they be working on a more efficient short-field o?

70
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:01am

I’m amazed that the opponent adjustments haven’t hurt the Eagles. After Week Three they were ranked fourth in total VOA at 45.4%. After Week Four they’re fourth in total DVOA, at 41.0. Their best opponent so far has been the 16th-ranked Giants. What gives?

The opponent adjustment is tiny this week, isn't it?

71
by David (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:11am

40 percent isn't that tiny, I'd think.

72
by Travis (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:12am

Re: 49

Yeah. I mean, there’s only a plug for the Rams above the comment entry form. No one likes the Rams around here.

Pat, you do realize that's a plug for the University of Rhode Island Rams, right?

0.0 estimated wins for the Titans in 4 games? Wow.

73
by jonnyblazin (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:16am

"For those who don’t remember from before, there’s a simple warning sign for ridiculous DVOA defenses early in the season: if the success of a team’s defense has been primarily turnovers, they’re a paper tiger. It’s happened every year since 2003 so far: you can’t blame DVOA for it all that much, because it didn’t know that Cincinnati wouldn’t keep up that interception pace last year.
This year’s paper tigers? I’d say both San Diego and Baltimore"

Well, SD has only 6 takeaways this season so far. STL is leading the league in defensive takeaways with 13, next is BAL and CIN at 12, followed by CHI at 10. The reason BAL is ranked first isn't because they have the most TOs but because they have pretty much stuffed the opposition. If BAL maintains their TO rate they'll end up with 48, which is a lot, but its certainly possible given that CIN had 43 last season. They've recovered only 4/9 fumbles on defense, so its not like they're getting lucky. I think its possible to have a -30% DVOA, so their Def DVOA will come down some, but won't necessarily be because of fewer TOs.

74
by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:27am

63,9 - Using the DAVE rating and Aaron's 17% HFA rule of thumb, the Bears are favorites in all of their remaining games.

Looking at their schedule again, though, I guess I didn't need DAVE to tell me that.

I felt like I was talking to myself about myself when I typed that last sentence.

75
by Marko (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:27am

"It’s Hub Arkish not Dan."

Well, actually it's Arkush, not Arkish. And there is a Hub Arkush AND a Dan Arkush at PFW. Dan is Hub's son. Dan Arkush wrote the article referenced in #47.

76
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:30am

#73

Is #20 even right? I thought DVOA regressed things like INTs to the mean. I KNOW DAVE must be more realistic.

77
by Ryan (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:32am

RE #74
And I guarantee you, dozens of "expert" sportscasters will be picking teams like the jets, giants, bills to at least cover the spread against them, as most of these experts did during the Seattle game, even though Seattle was clearly highly overrated, considering they couldn't do crap against Detroit, and gave up 30 points in the second half against the Giants. It'll be amusing to watch these experts make crazy uneducated guesses the next few weeks.

78
by Jesse (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:36am

Denver is clearly ranked too low because they destroyed the Patriots last week! My personal opinion is way better than this. go bronx! superbol '07 baby jay cutler rox!

79
by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:38am

To expand on 74...
For each game left on the schedule, I picked a winner based on the DAVE rating, using a home field advantage of 17%. Then I subtracted a win from all teams over .500 and added a win to all teams under .500. I know this isn't a valid way to do things, since a 1% advantage and a 50% advantage both count as 1 win here, but it's a quick and easy method. Anyway, here are the DavidH-DAVE predicted final standings:

NE 11-5
BUF 8-8
NYJ 8-8
MIA 7-9

BAL 11-5
CIN 10-6
PIT 8-8
CLE 3-12-1

IND 11-5
JAC 9-7
HOU 3-12-1
TEN 2-14

SD 12-4
KC 11-5
DEN 10-6
OAK 3-13

Denver gets the WC over Cincy because they're supposed to beat them at home.

PHI 11-5
WAS 10-6
DAL 9-7
NYG 8-8

CHI 15-1
MIN 8-8
GB 7-9
DET 6-10

ATL 10-6
CAR 8-8
NO 7-9
TB 2-14

SEA 12-4
STL 7-9
SF 6-10
ARI 2-14

While this is obviously a crappy method, I think it'd be interesting if FO published something along these lines every week. A projected standings similar to what Baseball Prospectus does.

80
by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:41am

Oops, CLE should be 4-11-1. And then there is an extra win. Oh well.

81
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:50am

#77

Did you read Aaron game preview? He went with FO stats, which showed the game about even. So much for educated guesses?

And since when do sportscasters give gambling advice? ESPN8 up and running from Vegas?

82
by Ryan (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:57am

Well, for example on Page2, Simmons gives his totally subjective guesses and uses the point spreads in his predictions. I stated that because it's highly annoying when an expert on ESPN who shall not be named picked Green Bay, Detroit, and Minnesota to beat the Bears for the first three games of the season. And, personally, I don't believe in DAVE as much as I believe in the actual games that have been played so far this season. And yes, Seattle was overrated based on this years performance alone. They struggled to score nine against Detroit, and put up just 21 against Arizona. I know scores aren't the most accurate indicator of a team's performance, but those numbers weren't very impressive. Then, they put up 42 against NYG, who had been giving up points and yards like crazy all year, and people overreacted to the result.

83
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:58am

I started a discussion in the latest mailbag about sacks correlating to future pro success for the qb position. I'm looking for more input and different directions to go with my thoughts. Any comments and thoughts on that discussion would be greatly appreciated.

thanks guys

84
by clinton portis and santana moss (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:01am

dear max #10,
we resent that assertion

85
by clinton portis and santana moss (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:01am

we mean max #15

86
by NF (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:34am

Aaron, I wonder if you should make clear that the Preseason Projection is not a projection based on the preseason play, but the data from past seasons and offseason personnel moves.

Also, according to PFP2006, isn't there also a MIAMI adjustment to figgies and a SANFRAN adjustment to punts?

87
by Bobman (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:41am

Yikes, the Vikes commentary is from last weeks NYJ entry.

Battle of the bays? I can feel the excrement, folks. What's that? ExCITEment you say? No, not so much.

Clearly Edgerrin James on a team means their own D cannot stop the run. It's in full effect in AZ. Wonder how long this will take to fade in Indy?

88
by Marko (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:48am

"I stated that because it’s highly annoying when an expert on ESPN who shall not be named picked Green Bay, Detroit, and Minnesota to beat the Bears for the first three games of the season."

Cough Schlereth cough.

89
by paytonrules (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:54am

#75 I stand corrected.

I can't say I know what goes on in Dan's head, Hub is a big Bear guy (used to do color commentary on their broadcast) - Dan would probably be too.

The basic point still stands - he didn't say "best linebacker in the NFC including Urlacher". Which, now that I think about it, is a really silly semantic point and a sign I'm probably on-line too late at night.

90
by saneiac (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:00am

#79
This method definitely doesn't work. While I haven't studied the schedule in depth, I find it hard to believe that three whole teams will end the season with a worse win/loss record than the Raiders.

91
by Jerry (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:01am

Aaron,

The good news is that the Fox comment on the Bills is about Whitmer. The bad news is that the Saints comment is about McGahee.

92
by BroncoMan (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:03am

Oakland is clearly ranked too high because CU would beat them by 40. The BCS is way better than this. gOgO brncos! raidars worst team eva!

93
by james (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 5:11am

How about grading every week on the curve.

A's go to top 5 performances of the week and so on.

Each team's units then each get a grade point average.

???

94
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 5:42am

Patriots ranking 6th on Special Teams is interesting, given Gostkowski's much publicized FG troubles.

I guess the punt coverage is really that good. Also, it helps that Gostkowski puts every effing kickoff into the endzone.

95
by TomC (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 6:05am

#89 - Yes, H. Arkush is a Bear guy (and yes, you're on line too late), but as Bears color guy he was always harder on Urlacher than anyone. The "can't shed blockers" tag that follows Urlacher around is due in large part to Arkush Sr.

96
by Matt C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:22am

Yes, that and his inabiliity to shed blockers

97
by Mitch Cumstein (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:43am

How about the Chiefs jumping so high? You gotta love those early blowouts.

I guess I am curious as to why the Chiefs are singled out. The teams ahead of them all benefit in the ratings from early blowouts as well, and against some teams like Oakland, Tennessee and Tampa, who have not even shown as much as San Fransisco. Is it just because of the early 1-2 record due to an OT loss in Denver when KC had a higher DVOA? I thought you would feel vindicated that KC is playing like one of the best defenses.

Here are my observations of the differences in the KC defense:
1) Hali is a substantial improvement over Hicks at DE when it comes to the pass rush, so that now it is not only just Jared Allen; 2) you cannot underestimate how bad Eric Warfield and Dexter McCleon were in impacting the pass defense; 3) Derrick Johnson has been a beast so far, and Kawika Mitchell quietly become a very good player last year; and 4) the depth in the secondary is much better.

Re: 79. The method is crude, but I agree that it would be cool to see projected final record based on current DVOA and remaining schedule. I would think there is enough historical data to say what the percentage chance that a team with +20 DVOA against an opponent would win a home game, or the percentage that a +50 DVOA would win a road game. I would guess this method, where the odds were weighted based on opponent difference, would not have Chicago projected at 15-1, because while they may be favored in all, they do not have a 90% chance to win each game.

98
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:13am

I'm guessing the Chiefs are singled out because the teams ahead of them are a combined 13-2, with one of the losses coming within the group and the other by epic/luck-fueled/fluke collapse. Meanwhile, the Chiefs are 1-2, didn't look great in week 1 (didn't see week 2), lost their QB, and appeared ready to fall apart completely. Seeing the teams ranked 1-4 will surprise nobody. Seeing the Chiefs at 5 is a bit odd.

99
by James C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:16am

#41 - Andrew

from PFT

"Maiocco surmises that the three calls that the officials got wrong were as follows: (1) the 98-yard fumble return for a touchdown by defensive tackle Mike Patterson, replays of which showed Patterson on the ground with the ball and in contact with a member of the 49ers offense; (2) an illegal pick that was not called on a 60-yard fourth quarter pass to Eagles tight end Matt Schobel; and (3) a 49-yard reception by Antonio Bryant that disappeared when running back Michael Robinson was flagged for an illegal chop block, even though the guy he hit was not engaged with another blocker.

As Maiocco points out, that's a 207-yard swing. (Factoring in the penalty that wasn't called and the one that was, it was a 232-yard difference.)

The calls also might have accounted for a total swing of 21 points in a game that was decided by 14. So even though Nolan was wise not to blame the loss on the officials, those three blown calls might indeed have made a difference."

I didn't say I agreed with it I just read it somewhere and wondered if this kind of thing ever made any difference to DVOA.

Thanks to Pat and Aaron for straightening me out.

100
by James, London (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:31am

Re 69,

PFP 2005 has a theory on why the Rams suck in the red zone.

"Mike Tice isn't cute, but near the goal line, he turns into Meg Ryan" (I'm at work, so that might not be completely accurate).

This refers to the 2004, season, and the OC (who I assume was calling the plays) of the Vikings that year was... Scott Linehan. Miami had issues in the red zone last year when Linehan was OC there.

I've not seen the Rams this year, and I might be doing Linehan a grave disservice, but it seems there's a pattern there.

Miami's schedule is interesting. Pre-season, Miami were supposed to ride an easy schedule to the playoffs. Now, according to DVOA, they face the 6th hardest schedule in the league. I guess when it rains, it pours.

101
by max (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:42am

#65

Pete, another Rams fan. Thanks for raising the average IQ of this message board. LOL.

Clearly, the Rams run D is a major concern. I think they have a big weakness at SLB. Chillar is sub-par. The WLB, Pisa Tinoisamoa, who is normally very good, is playing with a dislocated elbow. REALLY!

Rams red zone problems are due to: 1) Injuries on the OLine (Pace and their starting center, Andy McCollum have been out). 2) Stephen Jackson is not a strong goal line runner 3) The Rams have a rookie starting TE (Joe Klopfenstein) and they don't have other big targets when they get down there. 4) Bulger hasn't been comfortable in Linehan's scheme.

Both Bulger and Linehan have had a history of red zone problems. So I'm not sure who is more of the issue here.

If the Rams lose to GB, I will be surprised. But if they do, I agree that they will be no better than 8-8 this year with their schedule.

102
by admin :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:34am

Commentary now posted on FOX. Link is above. I've e-mailed them about the editing error that left two comments from last week. The Vikings comment actually should be about their schedule, the Saints comment is actually about Scott Shanle. For people who don't realize -- I don't put together the HTML code on FOX, I just write the comments and send them over.

103
by Not saying (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:41am

Re: 102

Slacker

104
by Not saying (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:52am

Also, and I'm sure this has been answered somewhere, how much of the "average" in DVOA is based on this year? Is the baseline for success taken from all the years back to 1997?

If the baseline is from multiple years, I have another question: is it reasonable to adjust for the week of the season? I have heard people say that it takes more time for offensive lines to come together. Or that defense usually has the advantage early, because of system changes, etc., on offense. If this is true, is it/can it be taken into DVOA?

105
by Chong Li (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:06am

Minor point, I know, but Ahman Green looks nothing like Laurence Fishburne.

106
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:09am

Re #41 (Andrew):

Did you just make that up, or what?

Here's what Jerry Markbreit had to say on the issue:

An official shall declare a dead ball and the down ended when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body, except his hands or feet. Contacting a player under this rule could be touching, grabbing, bumping, or any other type of contact. There is no strict definition of contact. The call in the Super Bowl was absolutely correct when the Seattle runner was ruled down by contact. In this case, the touching or slight grabbing by the Pittsburgh player was enough to satisfy the rule.

107
by bowman (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:10am

Past Schedule - Not enough weight, self fulfilling prophecy, or small sample size?

Of the top 10 DVOA teams, all but 1 of their Past Schedule Strength is over 20, and of the top 15 teams, only 4 have an above average past schedule strength.

108
by James C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:11am

#100

Linehan's problems in the red zone may stem from how he tries to attack defenses. In Minnesota he used to throw when there were eight guys in the box and run on seven. Basically taking what the defense lines up to give you. Of course as you get into the red zone there is less (or no) space behind the safeties and they can crowd the line with impunity. This problem was aleviated in Minnesota by having Randy Moss as a threat for the jump ball outside and by having a 270lb Quarrterback who could rumble in from close range. I am not really sure what is causing the problem in St Louis, haven't watched enough film.

Incidentally have you tried the NFL Gamepass? Its about £20 a week but gets you all the games (no blackouts and no Halling). I wouldn't get it every week but the Bears were playing the Seahawks late in Sunday so I shelled out this time. I would recomend it every once in a while, when combined with sky it provides untold amounts of football for a UK fan.

109
by James, London (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:21am

Re 108,

James, Gamepass sounds great, but do you have to watch the games live? If I could watch SNF & MNF the following day, it would be worth having, but my boss doesn't consider the NFL a valid reason to be late for work.

110
by ToxikFetus (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:23am

Love the Green Bay commentary. Very insightful.

"Admit it: You've never seen Ahman Green and Laurence Fishburne in the same place at the same time."

111
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:24am

James C #99:

replays of which showed Patterson on the ground with the ball and in contact with a member of the 49ers offense

Actually still photos showed this, not replays. No camera captured the what the still shots show. The actual NFL Rule reads: "... when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body except his hands or feet, the ball shall be declared dead immediately. The contact by the defensive player must be the cause of the runner going down." (Rule 7 - Scrimmage, Section 4 - Dead Ball, Article 1[e])

Kneeling on the ground and leaning on a player's back to pick up a ball is not a "cause of going to the ground".

an illegal pick that was not called on a 60-yard fourth quarter pass to Eagles tight end Matt Schobel

That's a very subjective call. When two offensive players run short crossing patterns with defenders closely drapped on them, there is almost bound to be a collision in midfield among some of the 4 players and the umpire. A pick is an intentional act of running into a defender coming in the opposite direction. Getting in his way and causing him to be misdirected is not a pick. And within 5 yards, contact, of course, is allowed. Schobel caught the ball 1 yard off the line of scrimmage, as noted in the play-by-play, then ran 59 yards downfield before two cornerbacks tackled him. With all due respect, even if it was an illegal pick, where were the 49ers safeties and linebackers? Schobel caught the ball 1 yard over the line of scrimmage! There had to be at least 6-7 defenders near or in front of him on the field. There are never more than 5 downfield offensive players at the momment the ball is caught.

I can't comment on the last play, as I didn't see the supposed non-foul.

112
by Not saying (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:25am

Re: 109

You have 24 hours to watch the games.

113
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:29am

Jeremy #106:

See my #111.

114
by admin :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:33am

Re: 107. A large part of this is that the opponent adjustments are only 40% strength, so teams with easier schedules so far are not yet fully penalized for their easy schedules.

115
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:35am

Re: 106

If you actually read what that says, in every single instance it is talking about the defensive player (well, in this case it would be offensive player) intentionally touching the player with the ball. What it is saying is that it doesn't matter how insignificant the touch, as long as the "touching, grabbing, bumping, or any other type of contact" is an intended result of the defensive player.

116
by James C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:44am

#109

Also James, it says you can watch the games up to 24 hours later on archive (I haven't done this yet but as the rest of it seems to work I have no reason to doubt it) and as you pay for the whole week you should get Monday night the next day. I suppose that when Thursday and Saturday games start you will get the too if you pay for the week early enough. You can get the whole season for $250 which might look like a better investment at the start of the season than going in to week 5. I would also advise that you use the 'example' box to check that your download rate and graphics software and hardware are good enough.

117
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:47am

from the Fox article:

22. BROWNS
We've been saying it for weeks — promote Babatunde Oshinowo from your practice squad, and good fortune is bound to follow. NEXT: at CAR

well, they waived him again, so I guess it's all downhill from here

118
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:48am

Re: 111

If that is the text of the rule, it makes no sense at all. Under that scenario, couldn't a runner get on his hands and knees and crawl his way toward the end zone (at least until his forward progress was stopped, but ignore that for the sake of argument)? After all, in that scenario, any touch made by a defender would not "be the cause of the runner going down."

Empirically, we know that runners are routinely called down when they go to the ground and are subsequently tagged, even though that is not what the rulebook says. The rule as quoted does not have anything to do with "intent."

119
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:50am

Re: 116,

Really? "Bumping" and "any other type of contact" suggest "intent" to you? You may be right, but the reason for your rightness is certainly not textual.

120
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:51am

(Sorry for three straight, but 119 should have referred to 115, not 116.)

121
by zip (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:54am

"it’s highly annoying when an expert on ESPN who shall not be named picked Green Bay, Detroit, and Minnesota to beat the Bears for the first three games of the season."

Highly annoying? Highly annoying? If you're going to take football seriously, how about getting upset when your team plays poorly, instead of when a bobblehead predicts that they will.

122
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:58am

Jeremy #118:

Touching a runner on the ground downs him by contact because to tackle or drill a prone runner is unnecessary roughness. So you can't crawl to the goal line.

Again, "down by contact" means intentional contact. Being kneeled on is not intentional contact.

123
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:06am

Actually, regarding the pick (#111): The contact was definitely intentional, but it wasn't a pick, because Brown hit the defender at the same time that Schobel caught the ball. Brown didn't hit the defender allowing Schobel to get open. Brown hit the defender allowing Schobel to have running room. That's a block, not a pick.

It's all silly, anyway. There was a missed intentional grounding call against the 49ers as well, and I think it was right before the Bryant pass (the play-by-play there is screwed up) where the pass didn't get across the line of scrimmage. It's never worth worrying about minor calls.

124
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:06am

Re 122

And my point is that you haven't given any textual support for that claim. You've quoted a rule that identifies causation, not intent, as the crucial factor.

125
by Tom Kelso (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:13am

What? The legendary Babatunde released? This guy was everyone's sleeper pick to be a big space-eater on Cleveland's D-line -- and after having Ted Washington, Romeo should know how to use him. The man should have a job simply for forcing FO to turn his name into a macro for all those draft analysis articles.

I was going to wonder how the Ravens dropped to number 7 after beating the number 1 team in these rankings, but it would seem that their DAVE is the culprit. If the wins continue, the DAVE will fall away, and they might even be ranked ahead of the Chargers. Right now, I'm taking comfort in Frank Langella from a slightly different Dave:

"He's not the President; he's a normal person. I can kill a normal person!"

Sleep easy, DAVE. ;)

126
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:26am

122 --

"Touching a runner on the ground downs him by contact because to tackle or drill a prone runner is unnecessary roughness. So you can’t crawl to the goal line."

Also, this doesn't make much sense. Why would it be necessary to tackle or drill a prone runner anyway, if the runner has a non-hand/foot part of his body touching the ground already? The point of tackling is to get the runner into that position -- and according to the rule you quoted, a runner is not down until he's in that position BECAUSE of contact from a defensive player. If he's already in that position, it doesn't seem to me that a defensive player has any way to down him by the rule you quoted.

127
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:35am

Re: 119

Re-read this part, "Contacting a player under this rule could be touching, grabbing, bumping, or any other type of contact." It refers to Contacting a player... which suggests an initiatiation of contact. If it had been re-worded as A player can be contacted..., it would be a differenct story. It a subtle difference, but it's definitely there.

128
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:50am

Neither "contacting a player" nor your term, "initiation of contact," requires intent. I both contact and initiate contact with lots of things throughout the day that I do not intend to touch.

129
by mactbone (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:04pm

Re Eagles-49ers:
The reason this was brought is not because someone went through the games looking for bad calls - it's because the league apologized for three referee mistakes in that game that benefited the Eagles. The league admits that the officials made three mistakes. The author of the article then tried to determine which three were the most obvious wrong calls because nobody leaked which calls they were. He may have found the calls the league says were wrong or maybe he didn't but I would think that if these were the three most obvious to him, then at least one of them was one the league found wrong.

130
by BlackThunder (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:11pm

Anyone else notice that 4 of the 5 top offenses are in the NFC East?

131
by navin (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:15pm

Re: 123
I remember the pick as being before the catch. Obviously I'm biased and the game was ten days ago so the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

My main worry as a Niners fan is why the defense is still so horrible. I figured Nolan would have it figured out this year, but it looks even worse than last year's defense (before injuries).

132
by Walt E (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:17pm

Jeremy and Andrew, regarding Rule 7 - Scrimmage, Section 4 - Dead Ball, Article 1[e]

I don't have this year's copy of the rule book because Amazon tells me it hasn't yet been published (seriously, it's October, the NFL needs to outsource this to someone other than the craptastic Triumph Books), but they took out the the last sentence "The contact by the defensive player must be the cause of the runner going down." for the 2005 rule book. That sentence is present in 2004's rule book.

My guess is that the rules committee after the 2004 season noticed the wording, came up with the same interpretation as Jeremy, realized no one was actually making a call it by that interpretation, and made the change to reflect how it was being called in reality.

133
by navin (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:25pm

A little more on SF-Philly from PFT, which states that the NFL admitted to those mistakes. Click my name for the original article.

Per Matt Maiocco of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, the NFL has acknowledged to the San Francisco 49ers that at least three mistakes were made by officials during last Sunday's loss to the Eagles.

Niners coach Mike Nolan was careful when asked about the information Maocco obtained from an unnamed source, given that the Big Show got himself in Deep Sh-t last year by crowing about the NFL's admission of blown calls during a Thanksgiving weekend win by the Seahawks over the Giants. Some believe that lingering resentment from Mike Holmgren's decision to breach confidentiality influenced some of the bad calls that went against Seattle in the Super Bowl. (We have a feeling that Nolan doesn't have to worry about that happening this year.)

"I got answers back," Nolan said.

Asked what the answers were, Nolan asked 49ers director of public relations Aaron Salkin, "Where should I stand on this?"

"You're not supposed to report on it," Salkin said, reminding Nolan that he could be fined for flapping his gums.

But Nolan was careful to say that the calls that the team disputed from Sunday's loss didn't alter the outcome of the game.

134
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:55pm

I’ve been playing around charting the numbers and just wanted to share a couple things I noticed.

Total DVOA

Tier 1 - CHI and SD

(8.8% dropoff)

Tier 2 – BAL, PHI, KC, DAL

(15.0% dropoff)

Tier 3 – WAS, STL, NO, IND, NE, BUF, CIN, JAC, ATL, NYG

(8.0% dropoff)

Tier 4 – CAR, NYJ, MIN, PIT, SEA, DEN

(8.3% dropoff)

Tier 5 - MIA, CLE, DET, GB, SF, TB, HOU, ARI, OAK, TEN

The 5th tier really isn’t a tier. The other tiers only have a relatively minimal drop from the top team to the bottom team. Tier 5 is a fairly significant and steady decline from one team to the next. For those who care, the slope of the linear trendline is -0.0509 with R^2 = 0.9633 (this parenthetical is only here because I hate having a period attached to the end of a number that already has a decimal point).

The really interesting thing was charting Total DVOA split up by conference. It’s amazing how similar the two conferences are right now (at least until you get to the 13th through 16th ranked teams in each conference). The biggest inter-conference difference from 1st through 12th is 4.7% ( KC/DAL & MIA/DET ). DAVE still gives a fairly distinct (albeit not very large) advantage to the AFC. But DVOA through 4 weeks has the two conferences pretty much equal.

135
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 12:59pm

Neither “contacting a player� nor your term, “initiation of contact,� requires intent.

And that's where we differ.

A little more on SF-Philly from PFT, which states that the NFL admitted to those mistakes.

Wrong. The NFL admitted to 3 unnamed mistakes. You can't just assume the Patterson fumble recovery was one of them just because some people think it was incorrect.

136
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:02pm

but I would think that if these were the three most obvious to him, then at least one of them was one the league found wrong.

Most likely, yeah. The Robinson call was definitely wrong - that I knew about. I'd be surprised if he got all three right, though. The pick was way too close to call, and the fumble return wasn't visible in any camera angle.

Obviously I’m biased and the game was ten days ago so the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I've actually got the game on DVD, and I watched it frame-by-frame at that point. He might hit him before the catch, but if it is, it's 1/30th of a second before the catch. There's no significant time difference between the two happening.

137
by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:05pm

Going through my picks based on DAVE, I have all road teams as losers except St Lous, Wash, KC and Baltimore. Then if I factorin a 15% home field advantage, KC is the only road team expected to win.

138
by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:12pm

I don't know anything about the SF/Phi game, but the NFL rules are generally woreded so the refs don't have to determine intent. The only excpetion to this that I can think of is intentional grounding.

139
by XCoachT (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:17pm

Yes the Bronco fan is back this year.
Had to see how the DVOA system was ranking my Broncos this year. Seems fair to date but here we go again with San Diego made out to be this great team. Let's see, they killed the two worst teams in the league (by far) and lost to a good team--how does that make them good? It seems to me all they can do is beat the bad teams by a lot (sounds like KC). I will state that I am not sure what the numbers looked like from the BALT game but I am guessing the numbers say SD should have won--oh yea, they didn't!
BORN A BRONCO FAN/DIE A BRONCO FAN

140
by dbt (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:37pm

An ESPN Page2 Boston-based Vegas-visiting gleeman-length-column writer who shall not be named has also gone 0-3-1 picking against the Bears against the spread. Schlereth isn't the only retard at ESPN.

Hub Arkush and PFW are based in Chicago. Arkush is also, in my opinion, a complete retard. My favorite comment of his from last season was him extolling the confidence the Bears coaches had in Chad Hutchinson about 3 days before he was cut.

As goofy and homeristic as the Bears radio guys are (nothing like having a guy in the booth who's primary contribution is screaming "ball!" every time there's a fumble), they got better when Arkush was kicked out.

141
by Bencoder (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:41pm

In regards to the DVOA for KC, you need to also look at the variance which is 2nd highest with 51.6%. This shows a high variability in play quality and can't be ignored in the overall view of their current ranking.

As opposed to, say, Houston which has only a .5% variance.....which means Houston sucks and they are very consistent at sucking. But, hey, at least they have achieved their estimated wins figure.

142
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:45pm

Re: 139

Maybe you should try to read the commentary before you start bitching about the numbers? Pretty much every point you just bitched about was discussed. Just a suggestion.

143
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 1:48pm

As opposed to, say, Houston which has only a .5% variance…..which means Houston sucks and they are very consistent at sucking. But, hey, at least they have achieved their estimated wins figure.

Which is the exact opposite of the Eagles who not only have the 4th highest total DVOA (just barely behind Baltimore) but they also have the lowest variance in the league (0.2%). ;-D

144
by Marko (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:00pm

"Hub Arkush and PFW are based in Chicago. Arkush is also, in my opinion, a complete retard. My favorite comment of his from last season was him extolling the confidence the Bears coaches had in Chad Hutchinson about 3 days before he was cut."

I remember reading that comment at the time and thinking how preposterous it was. The only confidence I had in Chad Hutchinson while watching him drop back to pass was that something very bad was about to happen for the Bears.

145
by navin (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:10pm

Here's the Schobel catch on YouTube. Watching this, you can see that the two are engaged as the catch happens. I can't determine the time between the contact and the catch.

I remember a replay during the game which showed that the defender was hit while the ball was in the air, and that Reggie Brown (or whoever the WR was) continued to block after that.

146
by max (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:13pm

“Hub Arkush and PFW are based in Chicago. Arkush is also, in my opinion, a complete retard. My favorite comment of his from last season was him extolling the confidence the Bears coaches had in Chad Hutchinson about 3 days before he was cut.�

"I remember reading that comment at the time and thinking how preposterous it was. The only confidence I had in Chad Hutchinson while watching him drop back to pass was that something very bad was about to happen for the Bears."

Man, does anyone in the media know what the hell they are talking about?

And how stupid are we for spending time listening to them?

147
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:17pm

Re: 145

I'll agree that it was at least very close to being a pick. But iirc (and I don't really know the rule for sure, so if I'm wrong please correct me), but I think whoever the WR was (I think you were right that it was Reggie Brown) didn't alter his route any. I seem to remember thinking that Brown's route took him into the path of the DB and the DB failed to get out of his way. If anything I think that would have been Illegal Defensive Contact.

148
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:38pm

Watching this, you can see that the two are engaged as the catch happens.

What? No, you can't. Brown and the defender are off screen left at the instant Schobel touches the ball. The catch happens just before the 4 second mark, at which point Brown's off the screen.

In the other replay, it's really, really tough to tell. It's very close.

149
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 2:56pm

#147: No, that would be OPI. You can't drive through a defender who's got a position on the field established. But, like I said, if Brown did hit him before Schobel touched the ball, it wasn't much before. Remember, the rule is touch, not catch.

150
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:18pm

Pat:

Schobel made the catch 1 yard in front of the LOS. Aren't you allowed to block up to 1 1/2 yards from the LOS at any time during the play?

151
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:29pm

Brown was about 4-5 yards downfield. He's the one who blocked the defender.

152
by doktarr (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:30pm

Remove the touchdown pass to Santana Moss that won the game in overtime, and the Jaguars would move ahead of the Steelers, Broncos, and Falcons.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about how hard it is to rate teams with so little data.

153
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:38pm

Re: 149

So if a WR on a crossing route and a DB coming across in the opposite direction are on a collision course, the WR has to yield the route to the DB??? That doesn't seem right.

154
by Rollo (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:42pm

Looking at the past and future schedules, it looks like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Green Bay, and Houston all are moving from a brutal stretch of the season to an easier one. I'm willing to consider the fact that Houston's schedule strength is so high because their opponents have gotten to play, well, Houston, but the other teams should rise in the ranking as DVOA rises in importance.

155
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:43pm

So if a WR on a crossing route and a DB coming across in the opposite direction are on a collision course, the WR has to yield the route to the DB??? That doesn’t seem right.

"Established place on the field". A route isn't an established place on the field. The defender was stationary when Brown hit him.

156
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:46pm

Reggie Brown commented after the game that an audible was called when McNabb saw the possibility of the flat area being open. He further stated that he ran his route and the defender, hustling over, collided with him (incidental contact). On this play, the WR, Brown, obviously didn't see the throw; and seemed to be timing up his route, since the ball could have been thrown to him. Also, the area of the field was too deep for a called pick play. You need more congestion to make a pick work. That said, it would additionally depend on the quarterback's read progression. In this case, the secondary jumped Brown's route and left the flat wide open for TE Schobel. Google "Kentucky Mesh" to see what a rub off looks like as opposed to a pick. The idea is to "rub off" your defender by running him into a defender covering a receiver coming from the opposite direction. This is normally run at 6 yards and 5 yards respectively, usually over the middle. Teams then run a post behind the mesh against cover 2, or a corner versus cover 3. Give McNabb credit for recognizing the coverage in his pre-snap read.

157
by Matt C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:53pm

When fans of a team defend plays that their team made that are later described BY THE NFL as mistakes by officials, then the fans make themselves look silly and irrational.

158
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:53pm

Re: 155

The defender wasn't stationary. I thought he was crossing from the offense's right-to-left while Brown was crossing left-to-right. As I understand it, a pick is when a WR intentionally alters his route to interfere with the DB. That's not what happened on that play.

159
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:56pm

Re: 157

Please show me where the NFL said that either the Patterson TD or the Schobel TD were the result of officiating mistakes. I'd love to see you try and find that somewhere?

160
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:56pm

When fans of a team defend plays that their team made that are later described BY THE NFL as mistakes by officials, then the fans make themselves look silly and irrational.

See post #135.

161
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 3:58pm

Re: 155. Corners and linebackers are taught "collision" coverage as a way to re-route a receiver. On a fade route, a receiver would like to get an outside release so that he can "ride" the defender to the inside before he "fades" to the boundary. On a whip route, the receiver (usually the inside, #2, receiver) releases inside and establishes some contact and shields an underneath cover man with his body (think a post-up in basketball), then sprints away from the defender to the sideline. There's lots of contact in coverage on both sides of the ball.

162
by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:00pm

I’d love to see you try and find that somewhere?

I don't think you need a question mark here? =)

163
by Matt C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:04pm

Nolan was absolutely livid over three calls, there are three decidely dodgy calls, I would have thought that common sense could be applied here.

164
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:05pm

re: Philly-SF
It was absolutely an illegal pick, but the timing was so close I can't blame the refs for missing it, and I don't think SF can either. It was just a little bit of good luck/bad luck. Though I remember when the cowboys used to do that stuff all the time it pissed me off something fierce.

I can't believe people are arguing about the touching so much, when it's so simple. If the players knee is down and any part of his body is making contact with any part of any opponent's body, he's freaking down. I haven't seen the stills, and the replay didn't show it. The refs made the right call on the replay because there was no evidence.

The Robinson thing was bad too, but there were a couple of calls that went SF's way. Overall SF got unlucky (assuming that guy was down), but I can't blame the refs for that. Also they may not get the later touchdowns if the score had been closer.

165
by Matt C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:07pm

At last a sensible post (as opposed to the borderline trolling)

166
by Geoff (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:23pm

RE: 165

I don't think you understand the definition of trolling as it pertains to the internet.

167
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:23pm

I don’t think you need a question mark here?

Yeah, that's what I get for editing the sentence without rethinking the punctuation.

I can’t believe people are arguing about the touching so much, when it’s so simple. If the players knee is down and any part of his body is making contact with any part of any opponent’s body, he’s freaking down.

That is the exact thing that we are discussing, so it's obviously not a simple as you think.

At last a sensible post (as opposed to the borderline trolling)

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Kettle.

168
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:23pm

Re 164:
Bill, you still don't understand what a pick is. The receiver must clearly and unmistakably go out of his way to impede the defender. That's why incidental contact is allowed. You have 22 guys running around in a confined space and sometimes they just bump into each other. How is it reasonable that a WR could pick a safety on a play like that? The were three DBs around Brown and none of them were in a position to hinder the catch.

169
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:44pm

re: 79 and 97

I have simulation software that does the kind of end of the season projections you are talking about here. It simulates the season 5000 times and applies the tiebreaker rules to determine playoff seedings. I would love to work in the DVOA ratings, but for now I use my own power ratings that account for HFA, results to date, and strength of competition. Check the link by my name to try the software or check the latest predictions.

170
by Fnor (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:53pm

Wow, I don't remember that happening before. I guess he didn't mention ED medication enough.

171
by Fnor (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 4:58pm

#150: You lose the ability to make contact when the ball goes into the air, whether or not you're within the 5 yard zone.

172
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 5:33pm

re 169: seriously, that is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I'm glad that no shifty fellas are involved, since that scheme is only succesful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants.

173
by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 6:08pm

170 - cool site

would be even cooler if you could input your own power ratings :)

174
by sm (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 6:31pm

I know I said this last week, but it's still true - I just don't understand the rationale for basing the "projection"/"DVOA" ratio on "number of weeks" instead of "number of games played." If 67/33 is the correct ratio for a team after Week 3, it seems to me it should still be the correct ratio if that team had a bye in Week 4.

175
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 6:43pm

well, I'm guessing part of the issue is that while team A only played 3 games after 4 weeks, we still have 4, not 3, weeks of information on that teams opponents.

So what we think we know about team A's play in game 1-3 is much more reliable after 4 weeks of information.

Does that make sense?

176
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:08pm

re: 174

You can set your own odds of individual game outcomes on the "advanced analysis" panel. The user-set game odds overides the game odds calculated from the power ratings, so in a sense you do have control over this. I could make sliders on the power ratings so you could adjust those, but my feeling was that users wouldn't have a good context for using them. If I thought people would use them, I'd probably make the effort to add them.

177
by Sean_C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:33pm

I realize there may be technical issues preventing this, but it would be cool if the DVOA charts were sortable by column.

I am surprised that there is such a huge discrepancy between DVOA and DAVE ratings. It seems to lead to a fair bit of confusion.
So, my next suggestion may well be rejected because it would muddy the waters even more, but I would like to see injury risk factored out of the pre-season projection before it is used to modify the DVOA numbers. This could be called the Alternate DAVE, or ADAVE, or something like that (3 ranking systems are better than 2!).
ADAVE, I think, would give a better indication of a teams potential in the very next game, when we'll know if Brad Johnson or whoever is still healthy or not.

178
by jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:38pm

so just counting the 2006 ratings

KC is 6th
Den is 21st

there is no way in hell you can justify this. It proves the rankings mean very little.

179
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:50pm

#178, you do it like this:

The Broncos are clearly ranked too low because they beat the Chiefs. The transitive property is way better than this. This site is teh sux.

180
by thad (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:52pm

I love pick plays!
I think they are great. and how often are they called for a penelty?
Once a year? Maybe?

181
by sm (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:55pm

"well, I’m guessing part of the issue is that while team A only played 3 games after 4 weeks, we still have 4, not 3, weeks of information on that teams opponents.

So what we think we know about team A’s play in game 1-3 is much more reliable after 4 weeks of information.

Does that make sense?"

Not really. I mean, opponent adjustments have only just started - last week there wasn't any opponent adjustment. Having the opponent adjustment ratio go up each week does indeed make sense, but the projection/this season ratio is totally separate from that.

182
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:56pm

2002 Q&A quote from Mike Pereira, NFL senior director of officiating (link in my name)

"1) What is the difference between an illegal pick play and a legal pick play or crossing pattern?
The facts that it may or may not have been planned, and didn't directly affect the ability of the receiver to catch the ball are irrelevant.
If a player makes contact against a defender more than 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage and his contact frees a teammate to make a reception, this is an illegal pick and offensive pass interference. The only time a pick can be legal is if it occurs at or behind the line of scrimmage. In that case, there is no foul. "

Don't give me that BS about intent, and checkdowns and audibles. That has nothing to do with it. The Philly WR ran directly into the the DB, hitting him slightly before the reception was made. That makes this OPI no ifs ands or buts.

183
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 7:58pm

crap, messed up editing in my previous post.
The 3rd and 4th lines "The facts.... irrelevant" are not part of the Pereira quote, they're from me and should be end the end of the post.

184
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:16pm

Bill:

What about this part?

and his contact frees a teammate to make a reception,

That didn't happen. He was several yards away from Schobel at the time. It didn't free him to make a reception at all. It stopped the defender from tackling Schobel, but Schobel was going to get the ball no matter what.

I still don't buy that it happened before the catch, either. I'm serious that on the replay, the contact and the catch happen on the exact same frame. One frame before, and there's clear separation between the receiver and Brown and Schobel and the ball.

For some reason, whenever I try to make a capture of the frame before, I just get the frame with the catch in it, so I can't post it anywhere. But I guarantee you if you find a copy of the replay angle with Brown and Schobel both in the field of view, the contact and the catch happen at the exact same time.

185
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:19pm

If a player makes contact against a defender more than 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage and his contact frees a teammate to make a reception, this is an illegal pick and offensive pass interference. The only time a pick can be legal is if it occurs at or behind the line of scrimmage. In that case, there is no foul. �

Lets review again. Maybe Bill will understand this time. Look at the video (145 above). The play starts at the 32 yard line. Schobel catches the ball at the 34 yard line. Brown makes contact with the safety trying desperately to get across, at the 39 yard line. Brown's contact has NOTHING to do with Schobel being able to MAKE THE RECEPTION. At best, you can make the case that Brown impeded the safety from getting to Schobel to shorten the yards after catch. However, the definition in your own post tells you that what happened on the play was incidental contact and not a pick because it had nothing to do with the receiver catching the ball. The defender simply wasn't close enough under any circumstance to affect the RECEPTION. Get the subtlety!!!!!

186
by D (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:37pm

Should Chicago fans be worried that Grossman's completion percentage has gone down every game this season? He's gotten away with it so far because he completes enough long passes to keep his YPA relatively high but it kind of reminds me of Eli last year. Eventually those incomplete passese are going to fall into defensive backs' hands instead of to the ground.
That said right now he's playing like the second coming of Dan Fouts so if he keeps his number ups he's an MVP candidate.

187
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 8:53pm

Click here for the first frame. Note that there's separation between Brown and the defender, and Schobel and the ball. Click here for the second frame. Note that there's now contact between Brown and the defender, and Schobel has touched the ball. Literally, those frames are one right after the other.

188
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:07pm

Re 185:
Thanks, Pat. The point about the audible, which also could have been a sight adjustment, is that the strong side LB blitzed on the play (145 above), leaving the SS to get out into the flat. He clearly was not in position to do that. McNabb sees it, hits Schobel immediately, SS gets tangled up with Brown (trailed by the CB) on what looks to be a 7 yard square in - long gain. No pick; no interference.

189
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:12pm

ok you win.

190
by Matt C (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:27pm

Re 167: 1) You are an idiot, that much is clear from the purile moniker. 2) I suggest you read a book called 'Bad Thoughts', it's a very good book. It will explain to you that using phrases such as "that's the pot calling the kettle black" doesn't actually make your argument any more correct. The color of the pot is irrelevant to the color of the kettle. 3) All I was trying to say in the first place is that I think that a bunch of people arguing over whether or not the calls were correct is pointless when a) the niners would have lost anyway and b) the NFL have admitted that they made 3 crucial errors and it's reasonably obvious which three calls they are. I really cannot comprehend how there can be this amount of debate.

191
by Marko (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 9:37pm

"Should Chicago fans be worried that Grossman’s completion percentage has gone down every game this season?"

No. I think two factors account for this. One is dropped passes. The first two games, the Bears did not have any dropped passes. They had one or two against Minnesota, and at least two against Seattle that were perfectly thrown (one of which would have been a touchdown and the other of which would have been about a 20 yard pass inside the five yard line). There may have been one or two more against Seattle, but those two I mentioned really stand out.

The other factor is that he is making more of a conscious effort to throw the ball away when appropriate. Instead of taking sacks or forcing passes into coverage, he is throwing the ball away, which of course reduces his completion percentage, but can be a good play (as John Madden said on more than one occasion on Sunday night). Yes, I know he hasn't always succeeded at throwing the ball away (as demonstrated by the end zone pick he threw against Green Bay and the pick six he threw against Minnesota, both of which he said were attempts to throw the ball away), but he clearly seems to be learning when to throw the ball away.

192
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:15pm

Re 189.

It's not about "winning" a discussion, Bill. I really respect and enjoy you defending your perspective. Trying to understand what really happens during a play is the fun of it.

193
by Jimi (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 10:38pm

Do you guys have any idea why FO's DVOA rankings aren't shown when you click on "power rankings" on Fox's drop-down menus? They were there last year, but now you guys have been usurped by Peter Schrager.

194
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/04/2006 - 11:29pm

the NFL have admitted that they made 3 crucial errors and it’s reasonably obvious which three calls they are

The NFL admitted there were mistakes on three plays. The 'crucial' part you added.

I doubt it was the pick play. There was no video evidence whatsoever shown that Brown hit the defender first.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was 1) the Robinson chop block, 2) maybe the Patterson TD - yeah, Andrew, we could be wrong on that, and 3) the McNabb 'forward progress' call, which you're forgetting about - that probably should've been a safety.

Really, giving McNabb forward progress outside of the end zone on that safety is much more controversial than whether or not Brown hit the defender 1/30th of a second before Schobel caught the ball 5 yards away - and as has been noted, I don't even think it was illegal anyway, as they were both running.

Of course, had McNabb actually taken a safety there, the 49ers would've ended up in worse field position after the free kick, and might not have scored the touchdown.

There was also an iffy hit on Smith that could've been a roughing the passer/unnecessary roughness, so that might've been the other play as well. But the Schobel play almost definitely wasn't one of them.

195
by max (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 8:32am

#35 Parker

"If their TO DIFF is really +10..."

"I love the Rams..."

Gee, everyone I know who "loves the Rams" KNOWS their TO DIFF is +10.

Are you sure it's love? Calling Dr. Phil.

196
by Matt C (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:06am

194: You're probably right, though I'm going to take another look at the 'pick' play as I'm sure that I remember that from a different angle you can see Brown breaking off his route and running towards the safety. I will have to look at it though.

197
by Fnor (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:31am

#191: I don't agree at all. He's thrown it away some, but not nearly as much as I think he should. A lot of the completion percentage difference is simply inaccurate throws, mainly overthrows to Berrian on streaking routes and cross routes to Muhammad. His early completion percentage also was helped by some pretty spectacular catches on bad throws, which just haven't been made in the past few games.

I think Eli Manning is a great comparison. Both have a tendency to just heave it up there for his reciever without the sort of accuracy you expect from deep routes. I think the difference is that Grossman is better at putting the ball right on the edge of the field, making it more difficult to intercept. On the other hand, Grossman is rather undisciplined on his short routes, often telegraphing his throw or simply making ill-advised decisions. I think that, like Eli, he'll be vulnerable to good (or at least opportunistic) defences. Luckily for him, it doesn't seem they have to play any until Week 14! Otherwise I would say they'd run into more problems on offence than the did last year- more turnovers, to be precise.

Needless to say, I'm not sold on the Bears. I like their chances of taking the division, and probably win a game in the playoffs, but I just see too many problems.

198
by bob (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:42am

Is the data available yet for defensive rankings by position - e.g. defense vs. WR #1, WR #2, TE, etc? This is for fantasy purposes of course - with my tight end on bye, looking at Dallas Clark, Randy McMicheal or Bo Scaife to add for the bye week. Any guidance is appreciated.

199
by Matt C (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:50am

If anyone is still interested in the three bad calls stuff, the threee plays are named by a 'source' in the niners section of Fox's NFL team blitz thing.

200
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:51am

you can see Brown breaking off his route and running towards the safety

That would only matter if Brown hit the safety before the ball got there. It's intelligent route design to have a player in place to block when the catch is made.

But there's absolutely no video evidence that Brown got there first, so it wouldn't matter whether or not he broke off his route. He didn't, incidentally - he did, however, plant himself and block the safety without turning for the ball, which would have got him called for a pick had he been there before the ball arrived.

Really a very well executed play.

201
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 11:23am

Re: 190

Re 167: 1) You are an idiot, that much is clear from the purile moniker. 2) I suggest you read a book called ‘Bad Thoughts’, it’s a very good book. It will explain to you that using phrases such as “that’s the pot calling the kettle black� doesn’t actually make your argument any more correct. The color of the pot is irrelevant to the color of the kettle. 3) All I was trying to say in the first place is that I think that a bunch of people arguing over whether or not the calls were correct is pointless when a) the niners would have lost anyway and b) the NFL have admitted that they made 3 crucial errors and it’s reasonably obvious which three calls they are. I really cannot comprehend how there can be this amount of debate.

I wasn't trying to strengthen my argument. I just find hypocrisy funny and thought that some other people might enjoy the laugh, too. And, for those of you keeping score at home, that's the second time you've referred to me as an idiot and you've also referred to me as a troll. Ahh, the laughs just keep on comin'.

And since when is a reasonable respectful (well, at least until you came into the conversation anyway) debate pointless? The Patterson recovery and the Schobel reception are both very murky calls at best. Why would a bunch of people, who seem to have at least an above average knowledge of the game, debating questionable calls be pointless?

202
by Nate (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 12:11pm

186 - I think it's just Grossman's receivers coming back down to earth a bit. We only had one drop in the first three games that I can recall. We had at least two just in the Seattle game. Personally, I thought that he had his most accurate passing game of the season against Seattle.
Additionally, the Detroit and Green Bay pass defenses are just atrocious, elevating the weeks 1 and 2 numbers. I'm not worried. I don't think Grossman will pass for over 60% on the season. He just throws too many deep balls, and kind of doesn't like checking down. I've been screaming at him to hit the check-downs quite often this year. I think he's going to be more of a 56-58% guy.

203
by Matt C (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 12:31pm

201: I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've called you an idiot. It might be the second time that I've pointed out that the name that you choose to post under is actually quite offensive. Is it too much for you to imagine that children might use this site?

204
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 12:41pm

Won't somebody please think of the children! After all, there's no risk of them stumbling on possible offensiveness anywhere else on the internet.

205
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 1:03pm

190: All I was trying to say in the first place is that I think that a bunch of people arguing over whether or not the calls were correct is pointless when a) the niners would have lost anyway and b) the NFL have admitted that they made 3 crucial errors and it’s reasonably obvious which three calls they are. I really cannot comprehend how there can be this amount of debate.

You don't visit many college football message boards, do you? If you think this is bad...

204: Heaven forbid that they may see offensive stuff on TV, or hear offensive stuff from other kids at school or from their own parents...

I mean, it's not as if there's a dating site advertized here along with AFF every once in a while...

206
by Ken (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 1:17pm

Question regarding how to interpret the data for the Jets...

DAVE has them ranked 25... DVOA at 18... the variance rank was 20 - so I'm figuring there are fairly consistient in performance.

So wouldn't that moderate consistiency equate to future performace closer to that of a #18 team rather than that of a #25 team?

207
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 1:21pm

Re: 203

You're right. The first instance I was thinking of was when you call me and everyone else who is partaking in this discussion "silly and irrational".

And as others have already pointed out, you can't possibly expect anyone to seriously be worried that some poor naive child with an unquenchable desire for exhaustive statistical analysis is going to be scarred for life by the mere sight of my handle.

208
by Ken (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 1:30pm

This year's Jets are a funny team. I think talent wise there are a lot of holes - in reality they should be a ranked #25 team, but they are playing hard enough and with enough chutzpah to the level of a ranked 12-18 team. The question in my eyes is whether or not this type of play, despite their talent level, is good enough to get a wild card spot?

It's early, I know. But to date, they have been a bit of a surprise.

209
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 1:34pm

If anyone is still interested in the three bad calls stuff, the threee plays are named by a ’source’ in the niners section of Fox’s NFL team blitz thing.

I'd bet money that's just Maiocco as "the source". After watching the McNabb 'forward progress' sack at the 2 again, there's no way that that wasn't one of the calls. The first time he even attempted to move forward, the ball was in the end zone.

210
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 2:29pm

206: Yes, the Jets are probably closer to 18 than 25, especially because DAVE underestimated the effectiveness of Chad Pennington. Actually, I think almost everybody did.

211
by max (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 2:46pm

#61 Jason,

"In 1995 the Rams were +14 in turnovers after four games and were sitting at 4-0."

"After a 5-1 start, they ended up 7-9."

One significant difference between 1995 and 2006 is talent.

Outside of Isaac Bruce, the 1995 Rams had a paucity of talent. Who was their QB? Their RB? Their LOT?

The 2006 team has Pro Bowl quality at those positions. The 1995 team had journeymen.

212
by admin :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 3:33pm

UPDATE: Sorry I forgot to do this earlier, but Defense vs. Types of Receivers is now up on the Team Defense page.

213
by Crushinator (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 3:52pm

212

About the Defense vs WRs - How much of Jacksonville's D against #1 receivers has to do with the Santana Moss Experience?

214
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 5:49pm

Re 200:

What you're seeing is NOT Brown breaking off the route - it's Brown completing his route. The in vogue thing today is combo routes with cover beaters to each side. Slants and flats is a staple of the West Coast. If they cover the slant, hit the flat; if they cover the flat, hit the slant. Normally, the S linebacker has the flat on the #2 receiver, but he's blitzing. The QB sees this along with the SS, who now should have the flat, stuck inside. The QB salivates, then pulls the trigger. On combo patterns it's critcal that each receiver complete his route, because the combinations are designed to attack a coverage. Combo routes give the QB a read progression. In the above situation, when McNabb reads blitz (look at the SLB in 145), he knows that either the slant or the flat will be open immediately, depending on what the CB and the SS do. Neat stuff.

215
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 6:17pm

That's #196, not #200.

Combo routes give the QB a read progression.

In this case, the two routes were also designed to allow the TE to get significant yards after the catch if the SAM vacates, because Brown's route puts him in a path to block the SS, leaving the TE with only one man to beat - a corner! - for a huge play. Which he did. And they got.

I don't know why Maiocco chose this play (which is perfectly fine) rather than the missed safety (which is highly questionable). I highly doubt Nolan would care about that play, either - but the safety is a bigger deal. His guys clearly did the right thing there, driving McNabb off balance and backwards so he couldn't establish forward progress, and they didn't get the call.

216
by Jason McKinley (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 6:33pm

Re: 211
Max, since you asked, the 1995 Rams' quarterback was 1991 Pro-Bowler Chris Miller. Their running back was 1993 and 1994 Pro-Bowler Jerome Bettis. I could say that they had Hall-of-Famer Jackie Slater at tackle, but that was for ceremonial purposes only (one start). Really though, they had Wayne Gandy, who has now been a starting left tackle in the NFL for 13 years (remarkably missing only eight starts in that time). He's currently starting for the Falcons. As you mentioned, they had Isaac Bruce at receiver. They were not a bunch of talentless shlubs.

Anyway, it's because of that season that I'm a little hesitant to go overboard on the 3-1 start this year. Being +10 in turnovers and only winning by one score or less in all three games makes me nervous. Like I said above, though: If they can get better as the year goes on in other areas, then not ending up at +40 in turnovers (the current pace!) won't be an issue and it'll be a really fun season.

217
by max (not verified) :: Thu, 10/05/2006 - 9:42pm

#216

Jason,

I knew about Chris Miller. He was a concussion liability when the Rams got him. Clearly past his prime and no longer Pro Bowl level. Bulger is 29, just entering his prime. Big difference. Bulger may make the Pro Bowl this year.

I thought Bettis was gone in 1995, I was wrong. That was his last year with the Rams. He was mismanaged, ran for a paultry 637 yds and was cerimoniously shipped out. So you're right, there was talent at RB. But it sure didn't show. In contrast, Jackson will very likely have over 637 yds by mid-season.

And Wayne Gandy is nowhere near Pace's class.

What I do remember from 1995 was that they looked like a lucky team before the Niners crushed them.

So let's see how they do against the Seahawks in 2 weeks. That will tell a lot.

218
by jebmak (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 12:03am

Re #179

The transitive property DOES kick ass!

219
by Parker (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 12:32am

Look at the changes in TO DIFF for the Rams in 1999, 2000 and 2001 and the corresponding change in the overall performance of the team, which was mostly the same those three years.

Just saying.

220
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:17am

And in other news ...

Verily saith the Football Gods: "Those who depart in ill-will or are cast off as free agents from the Eagles are doomed to injuries."

Having spoken, they smoted them one by one. First Duce Staley. Then Jermane Mayberry. Then Troy Vincent. Then Carlos Emmons. They repeatedly smoted TO, although he still attempts to stand in his own strength against them. Now saith the Football Gods: "The lunch-counter stuffing force among the Colts is overthrown. He is cast down! Corey Simon is done for the year with a mystery illness."

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/IND/9707608

The Football Gods wonder at how that $35 million in salary cap space might have been better used for an Edgerrin James extension.

The Colts Run-D now promises to be putrid all year long. The Football Gods promise a career rushing day for all such as that enjoyed by Kevin Barlow when they play the Colts.

221
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 6:54am

Re: Eagles-49ers Penalties

So this is where everyone has gone! I wanted to comment on these plays.

1) From video replay, it is clear Patterson was in contact with a 49er when he picked up the ball. I've always been under the impression a player would be down if there was inadvertent contact.

This is almost exactly like the Sean Taylor TD in the Tampa Bay-Washington playoff game. I think M. Washington picked up the ball from the ground, and he was in contact with someone's leg. This strengthens that precedent, even if I don't agree with it. It's too bad the NFL didn't clearly admit if the mistake occurred on this play.

An example if precedent is the NFL's version of a catch. At some point it has morphed into something greater than 2-steps and the ball. Over the past 2 seasons I've seen 20 plays where an offensive player caught the ball and took 2 steps, and was then nailed, fumbled, and pass ruled incomplete. It probably is because he never had the chance to make a "football move".... but the officials have called this incomplete for 2 years now.

2) Illegal Pick play. Again... it looks like it's an illegal pick, although that argument would have more validity of the defender was closer. The block/pick comes right as the ball is arriving... and I'm not sure I would call that "covering".

3) Fox sucks, because they don't show the "chop block" except live. It's easy to see why an official would see it as a chop block... but you can see Dilfer and Nolan clearly adamently arguing the call.

Watching it over and over in slow-motion, it looks like it's another close call... in fact it could be the right call. I'm not sure if engaged is arm locked, but 75 was reaching out with his arm, and was beginning engagement when the chop block occurred.

I don't think anything I saw was egregious as the Redskins-Jaguars, "There is no penalty on the play, but the Redskins should re-do their punt because they didn't allow the receiving team to substitute." Huh!? If there is no penalty why is it being replayed?

Also bad this season was the Cardinals wanting to attempt a free kick (against STL). The officials allowed Linehan to change his mind about accepting a penalty way after they should've.

The numerous ticky-tack personal fouls/taunting/celebration penalties have been the worst, as well as the mugging of David Akers that everyone ignored, even Joe Buck.

222
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 10:39am

The block/pick comes right as the ball is arriving…

Thus making it not an illegal pick, because offensive pass interference ends when the ball is touched.

223
by Brian McClafferty (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 12:20pm

Re: 221, 222.

Review Bill Wallace's valuable post regarding the pick rule: "If a player makes contact against a defender more than 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage AND his contact frees a teammate to make a reception, this is an illegal pick and offensive pass interference. The only time a pick can be legal is if it occurs at or behind the line of scrimmage. In that case, there is no foul." (My emhasis).

Two things are necessary for an illegal pick. First, there must be contact with a defender more than 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage. Second, this contact must free a teammate to make the reception. If BOTH of these conditions do not exist, then it's not an illegal pick.
So, if the contact downfield is with a defender who would not be able to prevent the reception, even if the contact had not occured, then by rule there is no pick. An extreme example: the WR running a post bumps into the FS 12 yards downfield and simultaneously the TE makes a reception 2 yards downfield and 6 yards outside the FS, is this a pick on the FS? No because this contact did not free his teammate to make the reception.

224
by Tim L (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:23pm

Scott Shanle did not play "mostly special teams" as the Saints commentary erroneously indicates. He started most of the games last year at one of the inside linebacker positions. And he wasn't traded because Dallas "gave up" on him; he was just squeezed off the roster because of the depth they accumulated that position.

225
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:09pm

Two things are necessary for an illegal pick.

Three things! It has to happen before the ball is touched once in the air, too. There's no 'pick' penalty - it's offensive pass interference. OPI ends one the ball's been touched after being thrown.

Since you can't show that the contact happened before the ball was touched, nothing else matters anyway.

226
by mactbone (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:09pm

Re 194:
I doubt the league uses the same angles as we get. They have cameras that can actually see what's going on. They may have seen what you saw, but you can't assume their replays are equal to ours.

Re 220:
You take way too much pleasure in that. You've brought it up at least four times. Do you honestly want these guys injured? I know I didn't celebrate when Colvin broke his hip right after he left the Bears.

The Colts D sucks mightily, but from everything I heard from Eagles fans last year that shouldn't matter since he's not a run stopping DT. The bigger issue has been Bob Sanders and his injury issues. That and the Colts offense hasn't gotten the big leads that make teams one dimensional.

Re 221:
Yeah, I thought that any contact was OK. If an unconcious player touches a prone ball carrier is he down? According to Andrew, he's not because the unconcious player can have no intentions.

227
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:22pm

Furtek #221:

Yes, the Taylor fumble return was exactly like Patterson's. No down by contact, because he was not intentionally contacted when down. Same call, same result.

Play to the whistle, boys!

228
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:33pm

I doubt the league uses the same angles as we get. They have cameras that can actually see what’s going on. They may have seen what you saw, but you can’t assume their replays are equal to ours.

It's not the angles. It's the timing. The angle that the broadcast replay had was perfect. Look at post #187.

Besides, even suppose there's video evidence that shows that Brown hit the defender before Schobel touched the ball. Given the fact that there's video evidence that shows that they both touched at the same time (post 187) that means that Brown touched the defender less than 1/30th of a second before Schobel touched the ball.

You think the NFL's going to say "Oh, yeah, the officials clearly should've been able to see that that contact happened beforehand, even though it happened so close together that human eyes might not be able to separate the two."

Bring on ROBO-REF!

229
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:46pm

mactbone #220:

You take way too much pleasure in that. You’ve brought it up at least four times. Do you honestly want these guys injured?

I'm not sorry to see whiny little snivelling non-team "me, me, me" players get hurt and put out of the game. Why should a fan love traitors?

230
by mactbone (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 3:30pm

Whoa, traitors? Is every employee a traitor if they quit for another job? I guess the world's full of 'em nowadays. To be honest I thought the Eagles didn't want most of those guys anyway. I guess you just want players to play for peanuts when they're on your team and damn them if they feel like getting paid.

231
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:09pm

#230: Oh, no, now you've done it.

FIRE IN THE HOLE!

232
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:25pm

Re: 230

First off, if I had a few million people actively rooting in my company and I played a significant role in my company's success, but I left because my ego greatly inflated my imagined self-worth (not applicable to every former Eagle Andrew mentioned). Yeah, I'd be betraying the fans. The Eagles' absolutely wanted to keep most of those guys, just not at the ridiculous asking price they were looking for. And calling any salary a professional athlete makes "peanuts" is insulting. If several million dollars over a couple years is considered peanuts, then what the hell would my salary be considered? Rat droppings?

233
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:40pm

"First off, if I had a few million people actively rooting in my company and I played a significant role in my company’s success, but I left because my ego greatly inflated my imagined self-worth "

If other teams are signing them for what theyre asking, then their ego is correctly estimating their self worth, and the eagles were undervaluing them, not the other way around.

234
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 5:03pm

Re: 233

Not judging by their production since leaving Philly. They may have been correct that someone would be willing to pay them what they wanted. But that's not what I was talking (typing?) about.

235
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 5:17pm

Wanker, but so many of them it has been health, and not performance thats been the issue.

236
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:06pm

Rich #233:

If other teams are signing them for what theyre asking, then their ego is correctly estimating their self worth, and the eagles were undervaluing them, not the other way around.

No, they are correctly estimating their market price, and the Eagles are correctly estimating their actual value based on production and durability.

There is a reason why some teams are not donors of draft talent to the rest of the league (Patriots, Eagles, Steelers), while others are net users of draft talent because they are unable to find and retain good players of their own.

237
by Mike (not verified) :: Sat, 10/07/2006 - 2:14am

Please explain how NE's Pass Defense vs. #2WR has a rating of 122.9. Would'nt a rating of 100 in regards to a defensive category mean that a corpse or my grandmother was on that defense during game time resulting in absolutly no defense whatsoever? If the rating is legit (per the model)...is it a artifact of the modeling process? Or is it simply a typo?

In regards to any/all ratings that show a substantial under-performance, whatever the category, how does it translate to actual game statistics? Or does it translate at all?

If a hypothetical team 'x' has an overall defensive VOA rating of +50 with a zero variance and the league average for offensive production is 200 ypg passing, 100 ypg rushing, and 14 ppg, could I reasonably expect 300/150/21 in offensive production out of the next team that they play?

238
by RIch Conley (not verified) :: Sat, 10/07/2006 - 3:33pm

Mike, if the team they were playing was league average, basically yes. Its not that simple because a team's offense can help out their defence with field position, etc, so its not that black and white.

Basically, what DVOA says, is that if a +50% DVOA offence plays a 0% defence, they should get 1.5 times the amount of yards that a normal offence gets in any given situation. IE if its 2nd and 9, and your average NFL offence gets 5 yards, the +50% Dvoa team can be expected to get 7.5

239
by Mike (not verified) :: Sat, 10/07/2006 - 5:42pm

Rich,#238: I do understand how +50% DVOA offense vs. a 0% defense can expect to get 7.5 yards vs. the 5.0 league average. I also understand that "+" numbers are good for the offense, while the defense likes "-" numbers.

What I am wondering about is whether all the ratings should ultimately reflect soley on offensive performance...either yours or the opponents.

What I'm basically asking conformation for is the belief that defensive efforts do not so much generate statistics for themselves per se, but rather are generated as a means of understanding the effect that defensive efforts have on the offensive statistical production of the team they are playing against?

And it is that assumption which should drive the interpretation, and use of, both the offensive and defensive statics as as a means of soley understanding offensive production.

In other words a +100 defensive effort doesnt so much tell us how bad a defense was, rather it tells us how good they allowed the opposing offense to be.

Am I spitting hairs here. or am I way off base here?