Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

JonesJon15.jpg

» SDA: Early Playoff Elimination Round

TCU-West Virginia and Auburn-Ole Miss might as well be early playoff elimination rounds, with the losers likely knocked out of playoff contention.

19 Nov 2013

Week 11 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

A big win against Minnesota continues to bring Seattle closer to Denver on top of the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings for 2013. Less than one percentage point now separates the two teams, and with strong offensive play the last two games, all three Seahawks units now rank seventh or higher. They've even moved into the top spot for special teams.

Meanwhile, remember when I said in Audibles that this week's Denver-Kansas City game showed us that these teams "are who we thought they were?" The DVOA system definitely agrees. Denver's rating changed by only one-tenth of a percentage point this week, going from 36.9% to 36.8%. Kansas City dropped a little bit more than that, but not by much, going from 13.0% to 11.3%.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Chicago continues to hover among the top teams in DVOA despite a backup quarterback and a ton of defensive injuries. They aren't the only NFC North team hanging around despite injuries; we still have the Green Bay Packers ranked 12th in the league. You may not have noticed, but even though they lost the game, they outgained the Giants 7.3 yards per play to 5.3 yards per play this week.

It's also interesting to note that Carolina drops slightly and New England rises slightly, because the DVOA system gave the Patriots a higher rating than the Panthers for Monday night's close Panthers victory. We give the Patriots credit for getting down to the 18-yard line on their final drive; even if they couldn't finish the job, the fact that they could move 62 yards in less than a minute against one of the league's top defenses is a good sign for the improvement of their offense. Add those extra yards that didn't result in a score to the fact that the game's only fumble was recovered by the Panthers, and we end up with the Patriots a little bit higher, although this is one of those times that a close game between two good teams means both teams got a positive single-game DVOA (42.7% DVOA for New England, 14.6% DVOA for Carolina).

Our biggest rising team this week is Philadelphia, which moves from 15th to 10th. The Eagles were 24th just three weeks ago, but their last three games are their three best games of the year by DVOA, and each game gets a rating above 50%. This isn't just Nick Foles playing out of his gourd; the Eagles have also played better defense in recent weeks. This isn't yet reflected in the official NFL rankings, where the Eagles rank 31st as one of just two teams to give up more than 400 yards per game (Dallas is the other). But the Eagles now have given up just 5.6 yards per play, which ranks 19th in the league. DVOA, which looks at turnovers and situational play, puts them somewhere in between, at 26th.

This is a good time for the usual Football Outsiders screed about how ridiculous it is to rank defenses based on yardage allowed, because there are some major differences this year between the official NFL rankings for defense and the defensive DVOA ratings. For example, did you know that 2-8 Houston is technically the best defense in the league by the league's official standards? The Texans have allowed a league-low 286.1 yards per game. Do you think that maybe has something to with the fact that Houston has fallen behind in almost every game, often by a significant amount? Or maybe it is related to the fact that the Texans had faced just 97 drives on defense through Week 10, more than only three other teams. And that's partly because Houston opponents have run one play every 28.65 seconds, the 30th-ranked pace in the league. Also not reflected in the NFL's official rankings that only consider yardage: the Texans are also last in the league with only 11 interceptions and fumbles on defense (including fumbles recovered by either team). J.J. Watt is great, a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year once again. But the rest of the Houston defense is very much not near the top of the league this year.

Cleveland is another team where there's a big gap between the official NFL ranking (fifth in yards allowed per game) and the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings (19th). This one is a little more surprising, because we thought the Browns would have a better defense this year with Ray Horton arriving as defensive coordinator, and the eye test sure does suggest they have a good defense this year. (It helps that they had their best defensive game by DVOA in this week's game against Cincinnati.) There are a couple issues here. First, like Houston, the Browns don't have a lot of turnovers, with just eight interceptions and five fumbles (four recovered by the Browns themselves). The Browns look better than they really are because they've had an easier schedule of opposing offenses (27th in the NFL). They also have trouble getting off the field on third downs; they currently rank sixth in defense on first down, 18th on second down, and 30th on third or fourth down.

No team specifically stands out as the opposite of Houston and Cleveland, a team with a very good defensive DVOA that still gives up a lot of yardage. The closest might be Arizona, which moved back into the top spot in defensive DVOA this week but still ranks just ninth in yards allowed per game. Buffalo is another team like this, ranking seventh in defensive DVOA and 16th in yardage allowed. The Cardinals and Bills are fifth and fourth, respectively, in defensive DVOA on third downs. They are also both in the top five for interceptions plus  fumbles forced on defense.

One thing I forgot to note last week: The FO playoff odds will run on ESPN Insider Tuesdays for the rest of the regular season, with Danny Tuccitto writing a report on which teams are most likely to make the playoffs and how it has changed each week. You can check that out if you want a sneak peak at the odds before they get posted on FO Tuesday afternoons. This week's article is here. Another note on the playoff odds is that Denver is listed as ">99.9%" because their playoff odds currently would round up to 100 percent but I don't want it to look like they've clinched a playoff spot yet.

BEST AND WORST DVOA EVER WATCH

Something very strange happened this week: the New York Giants and Houston Texans both had reasonable games on special teams. In fact, the Texans special teams were quite valuable this week. The Raiders couldn't get a kickoff past the 21, Shane Lechler had another good game punting, and Keshawn Martin returned a punt for an 87-yard touchdown. The Giants' special teams weren't as impressive, but the Giants drop off our "worst special teams ever" list (barely) simply by virtue of not sucking in Week 11. Washington, on the other hand, is still terrible.

BEST OFFENSIVE DVOA
THROUGH WEEK 11
x WORST TOTAL DVOA
THROUGH WEEK 11
x WORST OFFENSIVE DVOA
THROUGH WEEK 11
x WORST SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA
THROUGH WEEK 11
Year Team DVOA x Year Team DVOA x Year Team DVOA x Year Team DVOA
2007 NE 51.5% x 1993 TB -62.0% x 2010 CAR -47.4% x 2010 SD -18.1%
1998 DEN 40.4% x 2005 SF -58.3% x 1992 SEA -46.7% x 2008 MIN -13.7%
1999 WAS 39.8% x 2013 JAC -57.1% x 2005 SF -46.2% x 2013 WAS -12.8%
2004 IND 38.6% x 2009 DET -53.6% x 2007 SF -43.8% x 1997 PHI -12.4%
2010 NE 36.3% x 2008 STL -52.3% x 2002 HOU -43.0% x 1995 PHI -12.1%
1993 SF 36.1% x 2000 CIN -50.0% x 2013 JAC -41.5% x 1997 STL -10.9%
2005 SD 35.4% x 2007 SF -48.6% x 1992 IND -37.8% x 2008 MIA -10.7%
2013 DEN 35.1% x 1991 IND -47.0% x 2004 MIA -36.9% x 2006 ARI -10.7%
1993 DAL 35.1% x 2010 CAR -46.6% x 2009 OAK -36.8% x 2007 CAR -10.6%
2012 NE 34.0% x 2008 DET -46.4% x 1997 NO -36.6% x 2007 IND -10.5%
2011 GB 33.6% x 1999 CLE -45.4% x 1993 TB -36.3% x 1996 NYJ -10.1%
2002 KC 33.5% x 2011 IND -45.4% x 2008 OAK -36.2% x 2004 STL -10.0%

* * * * *

During the 2013 season, we'll be partnering with EA Sports to bring special Football Outsiders-branded items to Madden 25 Ultimate Team. Each week, we'll be picking out a handful of players who starred in that week's games. Some of them will be well-known players who stood out in standard stats. Others will be under-the-radar players who only stood out with advanced stats, including DYAR, Defeats, and our game charting coverage stats for cornerbacks. We'll announce the players each Tuesday in the DVOA commentary article, and the players will be available in Madden Ultimate Team packs the following weekend, beginning Friday night.

The Football Outsiders stars for Week 11 are:

  • Joe Haden, CB, CLE (Limited Edition): Limited A.J. Green to two catches for seven yards; 2 INT, TD
  • Joique Bell, RB, DET: Second among running backs with 46 DYAR
  • Shaun Phillips, DE, DEN: 2 PD, 2 TFL, four hurries, and a sack
  • Michael Roos, LT, TEN: Mostly blocking Robert Mathis, allowed no sacks or hurries
  • Bobby Wagner, MLB, SEA: Eight Stops (defensive plays that prevent a successful yardage gain) including a sack and an interception

Other players we considered (not including players on Madden's "Team of the Week") included Marcell Dareus, Donnie Jones, Cam Newton, and J.J. Watt. There were also some big games from guys we've already honored as FO stars earlier this season, including Russell Okung and Charles Woodson.

* * * * *

All 2013 stat pages are now updated or will be updated in the next few minutes, including snap counts, playoff odds, and the FO Premium database.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through 11 weeks of 2013, 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 to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season. WEIGHTED DVOA represents an attempt to figure out how a team is playing right now, as opposed to over the season as a whole, by making recent games more important than earlier games.

As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.

To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:

<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>

TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
LAST
WEEK
WEIGHTED
DVOA
RANK W-L OFFENSE
DVOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
DVOA
DEF.
RANK
S.T.
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
1 DEN 36.8% 1 35.4% 1 9-1 35.1% 1 1.8% 17 3.5% 9
2 SEA 36.2% 2 34.4% 2 10-1 11.2% 7 -17.3% 2 7.7% 1
3 CAR 26.2% 3 26.5% 3 7-3 10.4% 8 -14.5% 4 1.2% 15
4 NO 25.4% 4 26.2% 4 8-2 20.1% 3 -6.8% 10 -1.6% 22
5 CHI 18.3% 5 18.5% 5 6-4 11.6% 6 -3.3% 13 3.5% 10
6 NE 17.3% 7 18.4% 6 7-3 8.7% 11 -2.1% 14 6.5% 3
7 CIN 14.9% 9 15.0% 7 7-4 -4.8% 21 -15.4% 3 4.3% 8
8 SF 11.6% 6 14.5% 8 6-4 3.7% 14 -6.0% 11 1.9% 13
9 KC 11.3% 8 9.9% 10 9-1 -3.2% 18 -9.1% 6 5.4% 6
10 PHI 9.5% 15 10.7% 9 6-5 19.3% 5 8.4% 26 -1.3% 21
11 DAL 7.0% 11 6.5% 11 5-5 6.7% 12 7.0% 25 7.2% 2
12 GB 5.5% 13 4.1% 13 5-5 19.4% 4 12.1% 29 -1.8% 25
13 IND 4.4% 14 2.3% 15 7-3 9.9% 10 6.6% 24 1.0% 16
14 ARI 4.1% 12 6.0% 12 6-4 -11.7% 25 -17.6% 1 -1.8% 24
15 DET 3.2% 10 3.8% 14 6-4 10.3% 9 5.4% 22 -1.7% 23
16 SD -0.7% 17 -0.8% 17 4-6 21.0% 2 22.0% 32 0.2% 18
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
LAST
WEEK
WEIGHTED
DVOA
RANK W-L OFFENSE
DVOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
DVOA
DEF.
RANK
S.T.
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
17 TB -0.7% 20 -0.5% 16 2-8 -4.1% 19 -3.4% 12 0.0% 19
18 PIT -2.0% 21 -1.8% 18 4-6 2.4% 15 6.3% 23 1.9% 14
19 BUF -3.0% 25 -3.9% 20 4-7 -7.4% 22 -8.9% 7 -4.6% 27
20 STL -4.6% 16 -2.6% 19 4-6 -11.0% 24 -0.9% 16 5.6% 5
21 MIA -5.2% 18 -6.0% 21 5-5 -4.2% 20 -0.9% 15 -1.8% 26
22 BAL -8.0% 23 -8.0% 22 4-6 -18.8% 29 -8.8% 8 2.0% 12
23 TEN -9.1% 27 -8.4% 23 4-6 -0.1% 17 2.1% 18 -6.8% 29
24 NYJ -10.3% 19 -12.4% 24 5-5 -25.9% 31 -10.0% 5 5.6% 4
25 ATL -12.0% 22 -15.0% 28 2-8 4.1% 13 14.9% 30 -1.2% 20
26 MIN -14.3% 24 -13.9% 26 2-8 -9.3% 23 9.8% 28 4.8% 7
27 NYG -15.5% 28 -12.8% 25 4-6 -13.7% 27 -8.1% 9 -9.9% 31
28 CLE -15.7% 26 -13.9% 27 4-6 -14.5% 28 2.2% 19 1.0% 17
29 WAS -21.4% 30 -20.3% 29 3-7 0.2% 16 8.8% 27 -12.8% 32
30 HOU -23.9% 29 -24.9% 30 2-8 -12.8% 26 2.8% 20 -8.3% 30
31 OAK -32.4% 31 -31.8% 31 4-6 -20.9% 30 4.8% 21 -6.6% 28
32 JAC -57.1% 32 -54.5% 32 1-9 -41.5% 32 19.0% 31 3.4% 11
  • NON-ADJUSTED TOTAL DVOA does not include the adjustments for opponent strength or the adjustments for weather and altitude in special teams, and only penalizes offenses for lost fumbles rather than all fumbles.
  • 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 most consistent (#1, lowest variance) to least consistent (#32, highest variance).



TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
W-L NON-ADJ
TOT VOA
ESTIM.
WINS
RANK PAST
SCHED
RANK FUTURE
SCHED
RANK VAR. RANK
1 DEN 36.8% 9-1 47.0% 10.5 1 -10.3% 31 -6.2% 26 9.2% 14
2 SEA 36.2% 10-1 41.1% 8.8 2 -6.9% 29 4.2% 9 12.5% 23
3 CAR 26.2% 7-3 27.7% 7.6 3 1.9% 13 3.8% 10 9.0% 13
4 NO 25.4% 8-2 29.3% 7.5 5 2.7% 10 11.9% 2 12.8% 24
5 CHI 18.3% 6-4 17.3% 7.5 6 -0.9% 20 -2.1% 17 8.9% 12
6 NE 17.3% 7-3 16.8% 7.5 4 2.3% 11 -3.2% 20 5.2% 4
7 CIN 14.9% 7-4 19.4% 6.9 8 -1.4% 22 -4.1% 23 12.5% 22
8 SF 11.6% 6-4 7.9% 6.3 13 0.7% 18 0.3% 15 16.2% 27
9 KC 11.3% 9-1 19.5% 6.9 9 -10.3% 32 -2.3% 19 4.7% 2
10 PHI 9.5% 6-5 11.0% 7.2 7 -4.3% 26 3.7% 11 30.3% 32
11 DAL 7.0% 5-5 5.1% 6.6 11 3.0% 9 -6.0% 25 11.3% 21
12 GB 5.5% 5-5 9.5% 5.9 15 -1.7% 23 0.0% 16 8.7% 10
13 IND 4.4% 7-3 6.1% 6.5 12 -4.8% 27 -10.0% 28 23.8% 30
14 ARI 4.1% 6-4 3.4% 6.7 10 0.4% 19 8.0% 4 5.9% 5
15 DET 3.2% 6-4 5.1% 5.9 14 1.5% 14 -3.9% 21 6.1% 6
16 SD -0.7% 4-6 3.0% 5.2 17 -9.1% 30 4.4% 8 4.3% 1
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
W-L NON-ADJ
TOT VOA
ESTIM.
WINS
RANK PAST
SCHED
RANK FUTURE
SCHED
RANK VAR. RANK
17 TB -0.7% 2-8 -4.8% 4.4 23 7.9% 2 9.8% 3 8.7% 11
18 PIT -2.0% 4-6 -4.0% 5.2 16 -2.3% 24 -4.0% 22 7.6% 9
19 BUF -3.0% 4-7 -2.8% 5.1 19 4.0% 8 -11.5% 31 17.2% 28
20 STL -4.6% 4-6 -3.6% 4.3 24 -1.3% 21 15.8% 1 22.1% 29
21 MIA -5.2% 5-5 -2.9% 4.7 21 2.2% 12 3.0% 12 10.9% 20
22 BAL -8.0% 4-6 -7.8% 4.6 22 1.0% 17 1.5% 13 6.4% 7
23 TEN -9.1% 4-6 -1.2% 4.1 25 -3.5% 25 -11.4% 30 7.2% 8
24 NYJ -10.3% 5-5 -14.3% 5.1 18 4.5% 5 -6.7% 27 28.2% 31
25 ATL -12.0% 2-8 -19.6% 4.8 20 8.8% 1 7.4% 5 9.6% 15
26 MIN -14.3% 2-8 -16.1% 4.0 26 4.2% 7 7.2% 6 10.1% 18
27 NYG -15.5% 4-6 -24.4% 3.9 27 7.8% 3 0.5% 14 15.4% 26
28 CLE -15.7% 4-6 -11.3% 3.4 28 1.1% 16 -6.0% 24 9.7% 16
29 WAS -21.4% 3-7 -24.1% 3.3 29 4.3% 6 -2.2% 18 5.1% 3
30 HOU -23.9% 2-8 -20.8% 2.8 30 1.3% 15 -10.8% 29 14.0% 25
31 OAK -32.4% 4-6 -26.0% 2.3 31 -5.9% 28 5.8% 7 10.0% 17
32 JAC -57.1% 1-9 -58.0% 0.5 32 5.8% 4 -11.9% 32 10.6% 19

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 19 Nov 2013

141 comments, Last at 12 Jan 2014, 8:20am by sac longchamp

Comments

1
by Perfundle :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:31pm

NYJ 8.0
MIA 7.4
PIT 7.2
SD 7.0
BAL 6.9
CLE 6.8
BUF 6.8
TEN 6.8

The 6th seed will be a fun game of who can suck the least (the number is simulated wins). Has there ever been a 7-9 wild card before?

2
by KM (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:37pm

7-9 Seahawks in 2010

Beat the Saints at home pretty convincingly. BEAST MODE.

7
by gjdj (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:53pm

The Seahawks were division winners, not a wild card.

3
by KM (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:38pm

woops - not wild card

4
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:45pm

Nope, 8-8 has been the nadir for a wildcard team thus far.

5
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:47pm

If only by shear chance and also because one of the teams gets a win when they play each other, the odds of them all going below .500 has to be pretty low.

10
by gjdj (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:00pm

Agree. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than not that some team will finish the season hot (or lucky) and end up at 9-7.

64
by Danny Tuccitto :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:35am

Don't have the results for Mike's official version, so just ran 1,000 sims of my own using our underlying projection model. Here's your likelihood of X max wins among that group of eight teams:
MAX WINS (5) = 0%
MAX WINS (6) = 0%
MAX WINS (7) = 1%
MAX WINS (8) = 32%
MAX WINS (9) = 53%
MAX WINS (10) = 13%
MAX WINS (11) = 1%

73
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:43am

Fantastic stuff.

101
by Danny Tuccitto :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 4:18pm

Thanks. And since you're being nice, I went back and ran the whole thing 50k times. The max wins output was essentially the same, so here's the likelihood of finishing with X wins for each one of those eight teams (again, this is unofficial):

BUF (4-7)
WINS (4) = 2%
WINS (5) = 12%
WINS (6) = 31%
WINS (7) = 35%
WINS (8) = 17%
WINS (9) = 3%
WINS (10) = 0%
WINS (11) = 0%

PIT (4-6)
WINS (4) = 1%
WINS (5) = 8%
WINS (6) = 23%
WINS (7) = 32%
WINS (8) = 25%
WINS (9) = 10%
WINS (10) = 2%
WINS (11) = 0%

SD (4-6)
WINS (4) = 1%
WINS (5) = 7%
WINS (6) = 24%
WINS (7) = 35%
WINS (8) = 25%
WINS (9) = 8%
WINS (10) = 1%
WINS (11) = 0%

TEN (4-6)
WINS (4) = 1%
WINS (5) = 9%
WINS (6) = 26%
WINS (7) = 34%
WINS (8) = 22%
WINS (9) = 7%
WINS (10) = 1%
WINS (11) = 0%

BAL (4-6)
WINS (4) = 2%
WINS (5) = 10%
WINS (6) = 26%
WINS (7) = 33%
WINS (8) = 21%
WINS (9) = 7%
WINS (10) = 1%
WINS (11) = 0%

NYJ (5-5)
WINS (5) = 1%
WINS (6) = 11%
WINS (7) = 27%
WINS (8) = 34%
WINS (9) = 20%
WINS (10) = 6%
WINS (11) = 1%

CLE (4-6)
WINS (4) = 1%
WINS (5) = 12%
WINS (6) = 30%
WINS (7) = 33%
WINS (8) = 18%
WINS (9) = 5%
WINS (10) = 0%
WINS (11) = 0%

MIA (5-5)
WINS (5) = 3%
WINS (6) = 14%
WINS (7) = 28%
WINS (8) = 31%
WINS (9) = 18%
WINS (10) = 6%
WINS (11) = 1%

8
by gjdj (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:57pm

What do you think about just having 4 wildcards, not caring what conference they come from?

I'd rather see the best 12 teams in the playoffs. Assuming KC, Car, SF are wildcards, I'd rather see the 2nd place team in the NFC North in the playoffs instead of NYJ/Mia/SD/Pit.

12
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:05pm

If you're going to do that, you may as well eliminate conferences completely. Not having a poor division winner (2010 Seahawks) automatically make the playoffs makes more sense than that.

11
by PaddyPat :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:04pm

No, but there have been several 11-5 teams to not make it...

33
by miqewalsh :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:08pm

Those 11-5 teams usually had one or two 4-12 division mates to fatten up on.

59
by PaddyPat :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:39am

Not quite:

2008 AFC East:
Miami 11-5
New England 11-5 (didn't make playoffs)
New York 9-7
Buffalo 7-9

1985 AFC West:
Los Angeles Raiders 12-4
Denver Broncos 11-5 (didn't make playoffs)
Seattle Seahawks 8-8
San Diego Chargers 8-8
Kansas City Chiefs 8-8

Although, to be fair, there were only 5 playoff entrants per conference in 1985. In fact, the key here is that in 2008, the AFC East fattened up by playing the NFC West.

60
by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:55am

Well, it helped that the 2008 Pats drew the AFC West and NFC West, two divisions won by teams 8-8 and 9-7.

That pumped up the win total for all the AFC East teams in 2008.

137
by Andrew Maples (not verified) :: Sat, 11/23/2013 - 2:45am

That 9-7 NFC West team youre all talking about that made the post season in 08 (AZ Cardinals) did go to the Super Bowl (and in my honest opinion) got robbed

91
by justanothersteve :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:40pm

What part of "usually" didn't you understand?

96
by neco (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:47pm

Except that those are the only two teams that have ever missed the playoffs at 11-5...so no, not usually.

124
by jebmak :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 9:46am

LOL

Boom.

127
by justanothersteve :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 12:34pm

An early post had stated several 11-5 teams had made the playoffs. I took him at his word. You are correct that those are the only two teams.

65
by panthersnbraves :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 3:35am

On the flip side, could KC/Den clinch the WC this week? It would be interesting for the 4 division leaders and one WC team to be so far ahead of everyone else, and then have so many in a giant pile of meh.

(why do all my posts kick in the SPAM filter?

102
by luvrhino :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 4:36pm

I believe so, but it might require PIT/CLE and TEN/OAK ties.

For clinching purposes, both teams have tie-breaker problems because they have almost all AFC games left.

Miami could catch either team, even were they to lose next week to Carolina. Miami still plays the Jets twice, so if Miami were to lose and get to 10-6, the Jets could not.

This should do it for both teams:

KC over SD
DEN over NE
NYJ over BAL
CAR over MIA
OAK ties TEN
PIT ties CLE

With that scenario, the Jets could get to 11-5 and Miami to 10-6. None of the other teams could do better than 9-6-1. Since the Jets and Miami play twice, at most one of the two teams could be 10-6 or better.

KC already beat TEN, so they might still clinch with a TEN win over OAK assuming they could avoid 3-way ties. A NYJ-BAL tie would mean that KC clinches a better AFC record than the Jets and better record than BAL.

125
by panthersnbraves :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 10:05am

Thanks! I just thought it was interesting that two teams in a division could know they were going to the playoffs this early.

109
by Perfundle :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:23pm

Ooh, ESPN's Playoff Machine is working now. The 9-way tie for 7-9 I've constructed spit out a wild-card berth for Oakland, and taking them off the board switched it to Pittsburgh.

6
by Perfundle :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:52pm

Regarding that discussion about Buffalo being almost equal to Kansas City, that's basically true for offense and defense now. Kansas City is ahead almost entirely to a 10% difference in special teams play.

9
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 6:58pm

I have considerable contempt for anyone who made a small fortune as a head coach at college football powerhouse, so I really don't want to see the Seahawks win a championship, no matter how big a fan of Russell Wilson I have been since he was in college.

Unfortunately, right now, I'd rate their chance of doing so as better than anyone else.

13
by jjh (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:08pm

Rather than a coach that only sticks around for a few years, and then leap frogs to whichever other school will pay more?

Seems like a pretty arbitrary thing to dislike.

15
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:16pm

To be more precise, I have ccnsiderable contempt for anyone who made a small fortune coaching in college. That is more likely to have happened at a college football powerhouse, with the kicker that accomplishing the task of winning a lot of games at a college football powerhouse, unless you were the coach who made them one, like Barry Alavarez, is not all that impressive.

Not arbitrary at all, really.

19
by Glen (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:39pm

Do you not realize how bad USC was pre-Carroll? In the 18 years prior to Carroll arriving at USC, they were 126-84-5 (.586), in the 7 seasons after Carroll took the job they were 76-14 (.844).

Pretty sure he earned his money.

24
by Zach (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:04pm

But he smiles too much. And that clapping...

36
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:33pm

Yeah, that's it.

35
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:32pm

If you think turning around USC in 2000 compares in any way to turning around Wisconsin in 1990, we'll have to differ.

53
by Jerry :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:40pm

Pretty sure he earned his money.

So did his players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/sports/ncaafootball/11usc.html

136
by Bay Area Bruin (not verified) :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 8:22pm

I'm a UCLA fan, and I approve this message.

(It makes me feel a little dirty, but I do love Carrol as the coach of the Seahawks. How can you not root for Russel Wilson, Richard Sherman and Beast Mode? What a motley collection of bad-ass cast-offs.)

14
by Glen (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:15pm

As opposed to a coach that has made a small fortune at the professional level?

16
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:16pm

Yes.

17
by Glen (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:23pm

Seems like a random location to draw your line, but okay.

34
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:29pm

If you think the difference is random, between a guy making a small fortune managing people who get to sell their services to the highest bidder, within the context of a cba, in which a union negotiates for a share of total revenue, and guy making a fortune managing people who have a collection of cartels collude against them, thus fixing their compensation at 100k-200k in tuition, books, room and board, over 4 to 5 years, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

38
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:57pm

That's the coaches fault? It seems to me you should just be upset at the system. So Carroll and Jim Harbaugh shouldn't win in the NFL because they were successful in college? I'll agree that it sounds pretty arbitrary.

I'd say returning a sleeping giant to power is pretty impressive, especially when you look at the list of coaches who couldn't get it done. Sure, it's not inventing the light bulb, and maybe it's not at the level of what Alvarez did, but why that means we should root against him in the NFL is beyond me.

42
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:09pm

I don't like it when people who get rich by participating in cartels which hugely suppress the compensation of the talent which is working extremely hard, and taking significant health risks, in the process of making the cartels billions of dollars. I really think it sucks, and like to see people who enrich themselves in that process fail at the level where the talent can negotiate their compensation. Hey, I'm conflicted; there's a lot I like about the Seahawks and Niners, and there are things I respect about Carroll and Harbaugh. I've just reached the point where I'm not going to deny that college football is an illegal enterprise under any honest reading of the law, and it is one that is, in a grotesquely unethical manner, harming young men. I want the people who made a small fortune participating in this nonsense to fail.

45
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:20pm

If you see the kind of person Carroll is with those young men and in the community, that's pretty impressive. The NFL benefits from everything that goes on in college football, and there are plenty of people who do everything they can to perpetuate the system so they can continue to line their pockets.

I respect your principles on the issue, but it seems your anger is a bit misplaced. I see where you can fault them for making money in such a system, but I think there are many more true "villains" in the game including Roger Goodell.

47
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:41pm

Sure, the NFL benefits, and they got away with their own illegal collusion as long as they could. The fact is, however, that the men who play in the league now can openly negotiate for their share of the revenue that the league takes in. Bill Belichik isn't raking the cash that the players could have, if they were being colluded against. Carroll and Harbaugh did that. I don't want them to get ultimate success at the NFL level.

49
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:01pm

I'm saying the NFL helps perpetuate the college system through rules like having to be 3 years out of high school. The players can openly negotiate and it's certainly better in the NFL, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no collusion or they receive their "fair" share.

I also don't think your wish will come true. This year or some year soon, at least one of those coaches is likely to win the Super Bowl.

55
by Will Allen :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:01am

Yes, the NFL is quite a bit better, even if they deserve little credit for that fact. That was my point.

In my first post in the thread, I acknowledged the likelihood of my wish not coming to fruition.

110
by RoninX (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:28pm

So, you are opposed to college football. That is clear. But what you originally seemed to be griping about was someone who doesn't grow a college football program from scratch (since you explicitly give Barry Alvarez a pass) and instead uses a football legacy at a school to make money for themselves which is something else entirely.

In some senses hasn't Alvarez committed the greater evil than Carroll by polluting the previously pristine idyll of the badgers by bringing them into the slimely limelight of big time collegiate football, thus inevitably contaminating their "amateur athletics" program? I mean, in comparison all Carroll did was make a cesspit smell sweet for a few years.

Not to mention the fact the Pete Carroll's Trojans manifestly compensated their players beyond the soul crushing limitations of the NCAA. Despite the fact that they had to do it surreptitiously. I'll just come out in say it: viewed in the right light, Pete Carroll is the Harriet Tubman of the NCAA.

Your move sir.

115
by Will Allen :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 9:53pm

Please stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

118
by RoninX (not verified) :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 12:23am

In all seriousness I'm just surprised by this stance from you. I mostly lurk around here and can't claim to add a huge amount of scholarship to the discussions I do participate in. But I usually find your posts cogent and thoughtful even if I sometimes disagree.

In this case I don't disagree that the NCAA is a broken, corrupt, bordering on evil organization. However you fixation on a few coaches whose income from the system is dwarfed by that of their "academic" institutions and the NCAA itself is what is hanging me up. It just puzzles me that an individual could have "considerable contempt" for a football coach who has consistently used his positions over the years as platforms to reach out and improve the lives of underprivileged youth and their communities. I mean, Carroll is a man that caused a spate of controversy wondering if his charity work was actually hindering his coaching at USC. I think it is not overstating things to say that no matter how well intentioned only a select few of us will be able to positively impact as many lives as Pete Carroll has (I use him as an example because you mention him as a target for your contempt by name).

Is Carroll the apex of humanity? No. Do I understand why some fan based mock or dislike him? Sure. Do I understand non-football contempt aimed at him based on his participation in the broken NCAA system? I do not.

I understand if you are done discussing this issue, and will continue to appreciate your posts.

119
by Will Allen :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 12:47am

I have considerable contempt for men who make millions of dollars for knowingly working with cartels which border on evil, even if the men do a lot of charity work. I don't think doing charity work mitigates the willful decision to make millions of dollars by colluding with cartels which are doing great harm to other people.

I find it odd that you label this a "fixation".

120
by Insancipitory :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 12:56am

It's kind of inline with holding a district manager responsible for the worldwide practices of Wal*Mart.

121
by Will Allen :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 1:04am

No, a football coach who makes 3-5 million dollars a year is not like a WalMart district manager, and I've yet to see evidence that WalMart approaches the mendacity of the NCAA and the major college football conferences.

80
by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 11:15am

So, basically you don't like the american business model?

81
by Will Allen :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 11:32am

Do people who write code have software companies entering into formal agreements limiting compensation for people who write code? Do Costco, Trader Joe's, WalMart, and Target have an association they belong to, in which they form an agreement as to what will be offered to cashiers?

There really is no way to honestly argue that what the Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, NCAA, etc., are doing is legal, other than to simply revert to a bald statement of "A majority of the hacks on the Supreme Court signed off on it".

100
by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 4:09pm

"Do Costco, Trader Joe's, WalMart, and Target have an association they belong to, in which they form an agreement as to what will be offered to cashiers?"

Yeah, its just not formalized. The only difference between the NCAA and the majority of big business america is that the doesn't actually have to break any laws to do it. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen everywhere else.

114
by Jerry :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:38pm

There are differences:

"[Costco] pays a living wage. Costco's CEO and president, Craig Jelinek, has publicly endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and he takes that to heart. The company's starting pay is $11.50 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour, not including overtime. Most other big box retailers start their employees at minimum wage."

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-costco_n_4275774.h...

116
by Will Allen :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 9:55pm

You are ignorant of the subject matter. There is considerable disparity in how retail employees are compensated. There is extremely little evidence of collusion.

84
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:32pm

Monopolistic forces have long been part of the American business framework. That doesn't mean that they produce good for the society.

87
by QCIC (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:40pm

What on earth does college football have to do with "The American business model". If anything our business model is ideally one where organizations are free to conduct businesses and their employees and customers on terms they see fit. Not on terms set by a colluding group of the businesses.

That Bob cannot decide to take his compensation from Texas in $ instead of tuition is about as unamerican an idea as I can think.

42
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:09pm

I don't like it when people who get rich by participating in cartels which hugely suppress the compensation of the talent which is working extremely hard, and taking significant health risks, in the process of making the cartels billions of dollars. I really think it sucks, and like to see people who enrich themselves in that process fail at the level where the talent can negotiate their compensation. Hey, I'm conflicted; there's a lot I like about the Seahawks and Niners, and there are things I respect about Carroll and Harbaugh. I've just reached the point where I'm not going to deny that college football is an illegal enterprise under any honest reading of the law, and it is one that is, in a grotesquely unethical manner, harming young men. I want the people who made a small fortune participating in this nonsense to fail.

97
by ChrisS (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 3:00pm

I am not arguing that NCAA football is not extremely exploitive of the players and based on the scale of the revenues the players should get a a cut of the pie. But I am not clear on what basis it is illegal. I think it is only illegal if you define the players as employees and college athletics as an offical job. And if this were how players were defined then it would have to be legal to employ anyone (former NFL players) to work for the "college" team.

105
by Rodney Anonymous Melloncamp (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:48pm

Seriously? You are choosing to hold the coaches personally responsible for exploiting college athletes? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. By your "logic," anyone who has participated in the college system as anything other than a player is responsible for the entire system - so if you're going to be consistent, you should dislike virtually every coach in the NFL, from head coaches on down. And I say that as someone who is in 100% agreement with you about the cartel/plantation college system. Aim your ire at a legitimate target, like the NCAA.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Carroll (or Harbaugh) for personal and arbitrary reasons. Carroll is frequently a massively smug SOB and Harbaugh has a perpetual rage-boner, so it's totally understandable why many people dislike them on personal merits. Just say you don't like them because you think they're dicks, and leave it at that.

107
by tuluse :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 6:00pm

Are all those people making millions of dollars a year?

111
by RoninX (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:31pm

Not to mention that a huge percentage of NFL coaches have been part of an NCAA coaching "cartel" in the past (though some were soldiers instead of Dons). This argument seems to be a particularly weird way to rationalize a dislike.

117
by Will Allen :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 10:07pm

Yes, I dislike it when some people make millions of dollars per year, by operating within cartels which prevent other valuable laborers from seeking compensation in line with the revenues they deliver, especially when those laborers subject themselves to significant health risk when performing for the cartels. If you want to call me dumb, fine. I'll return the civility by calling you morally grotesque, and note that you are either dishonest or illiterate, since you have misrepresented what I wrote. Here'a clue; I'm not really offended nearly as much by a trainer who makes 75k a year taking care of college football players. Here's another clue. It is possible to have more than one target.

134
by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 12:33pm

The NCAA does no such thing. College players are free to go play for the CFL, or any of the other pro leagues(arena, etc).

The NFL has an entrance requirement (3 years post HS), which is significantly less stringent than a huge percentage of employers in this country (you don't have a college degree, you can't work for my employer).

If there's a problem, its with the NFL requiring them to be 3 years out of HS, not with the NCAA's compensation package.

44
by Jon Goldman (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:10pm

Oh. I just hate him because he's a 9-11 truther.

18
by Perfundle :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:33pm

"Kickoff returns and punt returns are judged on return yardage only."

It seems that this can understate the strength of a team's return team. Minnesota had been kicking into the end zone against Seattle the entire first half until Harvin returned it 58 yards on them; that freaked them out enough to pooch kick the last two, which still got Seattle great post-kickoff field position but minimal returns. I think Minnesota got the same treatment a game ago when Forbath tried to avoid Patterson on the kickoffs, and of course Hester's been getting this treatment for years.

25
by Vincent Verhei :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:12pm

There is a "Devin Hester factor" for teams that face an inordinate number of short kicks.

20
by ODBvernon :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:45pm

Not that is should't count, but just how much is that Rams game destroying the Colts' DVOA? I feel like they'd be in 10-12% range with the Chiefs and 49ers which is where I perceive them to be from watching the games.

Big test of the offense this week in AZ to validate my "eye" test.

28
by Ben :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:27pm

The Colts could easily go 3-3 the rest of the season. They have the three division cupcakes at home, but face the #1, #3, and #6 defenses on the road.

68
by Bobman :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:03am

I'm not entirely sold on AZ having a #1 D. I know there are opponent adjustments, but their last three opponents had a total of 5 wins this year... in Week 10. Two of them at home. A hobbled HOU team scored 24 on them at home with no real garbage time pts, Jax had no garbage time pts (nothing past the 2nd quarter!)... Their scoring D is good but not as good as KC or even NO. I'm skeptical at the very least.

AZ and IND are ranked consecutively, so we'll see how that works out this week. I suspect the arrow is trending up on AZ and down on IND, but still think Indy wins it.

31
by TomC :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:32pm

The real identity of the Colts is in that variance number. I have no idea what to expect from them any week, this one included.

75
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 9:09am

If memory serves, the Colts were closer to 20% before the Rams game. DVOA really freaked out about that game.

21
by BJR :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:54pm

Carolina are ranked too low because they are the CLUTCH. They had comeback victories against two Super Bowl teams, no other teams deserve to be in their presence. Riverboat Ron 4 Prez.

39
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:59pm

Who'd have thought someone could say that about Ron Rivera and the Panthers?

112
by RoninX (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:33pm

Who'da thunk Rivera would start riding Proud Mary to glory in the middle of an NFL season? Its a weird world.

22
by kamiyu206 :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:02pm

Whoa, Giants are 9th best defense?

Initially I was surprised, but I realized they faced Josh Freeman, Matt Barkley, Terrelle Pryor, and Scott Tolzien in last 4 weeks.

69
by Bobman :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:05am

Yeah, but those QBs are MUCH better than if they had faced Morgan Freeman, Charles Barkley, Richard Pryor, or JRR Tolkein.

77
by young curmudgeon :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 10:07am

I'd pay good money to see those games.

79
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 10:42am

Morgan Freeman probably couldn't move the offense, but he would be a good for an inspiring halftime speech when his team is down 24-0.

90
by CaffeineMan (too lazy to log in) (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:24pm

Bobman, that was awesome...

92
by jebmak :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:00pm

Yes. Yes it was.

98
by Mike B. In Va :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 3:06pm

Indeed it was.

108
by Kevin M (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 6:35pm

The reason the Giants defense is ranked so highly is their strength against the run. They've played 10 games against Top 24 DVOA rushers and shut down 6 of them (Lacy, Peterson, McCoy 2x, Forte, and Charles). DeMarco Murray had an average game and 3 others played well. The Giants are also 5th in adj. line yards allowed. They've stopped the run well regardless of the QBs they're facing.

23
by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:04pm

Tampa is clearly ranked too high because Greg Schiano is a douche.

26
by Perfundle :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:24pm

Whoa, Tampa now rates as a league-average team? That's blind-mowing.

29
by TomC :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:30pm

You have a cronjob that just generates this every Tuesday now, right?

27
by DA (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:27pm

Teams facing Tolzien instead of Rodgers (and other backups QBs) are getting some nice inflated #'s for their Defensive DVOA

30
by commissionerleaf :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:31pm

Cincinnati is clearly ranked too high because Andy Dalton's arm is made of overcooked Fettuccine Alfredo . Ray Lewis ranting about respecting defensive players as MEN is way better than this. Marvin Jones fantasy owners were spotted handing out orange and black striped pool noodles at Bengals games on Dalton's Drawback Day!

40
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:00pm

Misspellings?

32
by andrew :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 8:53pm

How can estimated wins go down?

e.g., last week, Minnesota in 9 games had an estimated 4.2 wins. They only won 2... but their estimated wins of those 9 games was 4.2.

Now, in 10 games, after playing a game they had zero chance of winning... their estimated win total is 4.0. By adding one game to the set of games, their estimated wins went down by 0.2.

I am guessing changes to opponent dvoa is why. But it still seems odd.

85
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:36pm

Bad week.

Also - time travel.

37
by Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 9:48pm

I am confused by the estimated wins (I know it ignores byes). How is it that Seattle is closer to Denver than Carolina by DVOA and VOA, but closer to Carolina than Denver on estimated wins? Even including the past schedule, Seattle's is closer to Denver's than to Carolina.

41
by Cuenca Guy :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:01pm

I believe it goes game by game rather than looking at the total so perhaps the answer is in the variance?

54
by Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:44pm

"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."

Obviously Denver rates better in the areas that Forest Index values. As you can see, schedule doesn't matter because estimated wins adjusts to a league-average schedule. Denver also has a terrible fumble recovery rate so that might be a factor.

63
by Perfundle :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:12am

"first quarter offense"

Denver is second in 1st-quarter scoring with 7.6 points per game, which is to be expected. So who is first?

Can you believe Oakland with 8.3?

67
by Eggwasp (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 4:31am

Oakland is clearly rated too low because of McGloin. Reggie McKenzie's next QB selection random generation algorithm is way better than this

46
by Gaucho (unregistered) (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:36pm

Let's the ritual continue!

The New York Football Giants is clearly ranked too low because THEY ARE THE GIANTS, and that is enough. The fact that I do not care about Philly at all is way better than this. WERE GOING TO RUN THE TALBE! WERE GONNA CRSH DA BHOYZ! WACTH OUT, BYRDZ!

86
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:38pm

Patriots fans nod in agreement. At 0-6, the Giants had the NFC East right where they wanted it.

Coughlin is a sadistic f*ck.

132
by Gaucho (unregistered) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 11:13am

My brother is a Pats fan. Suddenly, his jokes have stopped. I wonder why! ;-D

48
by Gaucho (unregistered) (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:49pm

NFC East remaining schedule:

PHI - bye, ARI, DET, @MIN, CHI, @DAL;
DAL - @NYG, OAK, @CHI, GB, @WAS, PHI;
NYG - DAL, @WAS, @SD, SEA, @DET, WAS;
WAS - SF, NYG, KC, @ATL, DAL, @NYG.

Well, I will keep dreaming until I can...

88
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:44pm

Don't know what you're complaining about. After beating Dallas, the Giants will have tied them at 5-6, 1 game behind the Eagles. And two games left against the Redskins. Trust me, the Redskins are in free fall right now. San Diego and Detroit can be beaten.

As for Week 15, we can look forward to a week of Seahawks' fans bitching about how unfair it is for them to play a game at "10 a.m."

95
by CM (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:40pm

Uh, right. Cause they have done so poorly with 10am starts so far this year.

I don't think we Seahawk fans "bitch about how unfair it is". Until recently, we would wring our hands at the prospect of our team playing one, knowing how bad they have fared in the past.

103
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:38pm

"I don't think we Seahawk fans 'bitch about how unfair it is.'"

How long have you been visiting this site? It was a constant theme last year.

Edit: upon reflection, "constant" is a bit strong. The fact that the Seahawks have done well on the road this season underscores the fact that any road woes in the past were more a reflection of the relative strength of the team and not any kind of inherent unfairness for West Coast teams playing early games on the East Coast. For a good part of the past decade (before last season), Western teams were, as a group, below average. Now that the West is strong, I would presume that teams like Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver should travel well.

113
by RoninX (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 7:37pm

Be fair! Denver is an hour ahead of Seattle/SF/SD/OAK!

122
by Gaucho (unregistered) (not verified) :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 1:54am

The biggest problem is what PHI can do; regardless of what Giants could do. The trickiest part of NYG's schedule is @SD, SEA, @DET. There is nothing for PHI that seems to match this.

50
by Joe in Seattle (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:22pm

Wonder if it's actually possible for Tampa to finish hot enough to save Schiano's job??

51
by Joe in Seattle (not verified) :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:26pm

Answering my own question, I think no. Still 4 likely losses on the schedule with the Niners, Lions, Panthers and Saints. They could beat the Rams and Bills.

61
by Insancipitory :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:01am

9ers @Tampa Bay is an interesting example. The Buccs are pretty good at stopping what the 9ers do best. Glennon seems to be improving, and Vincent Jackson seems like he might be able to find some success against what, to my mind, is a not particularly frightening 9ers secondary. And whatever his other faults, sometimes Schiano can come up with a pretty inspired gameplan. While I think the 9ers are a better team, Tampa is getting better and were never as bad as ESPN made them out to be. A good gameplan, a quick start, a long trip, a couple of bounces, and I don't know if the 9ers have the kind of come back potential they might need in that circumstance.

52
by justanothersteve :: Tue, 11/19/2013 - 11:37pm

Green Bay is clearly ranked too high because - oh snap, I can't even explain why. Rankings based on darts while playing Hi Bob is way better than this. Oh - insert deity of choice - I need a drink.

56
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:08am

Ding dong!
Who is it?
The Raiders and we arre here to kick your ass abd move uo the Dvoa rabkings

70
by Bobman :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:08am

Sorry, couldn't hear the bell, had the sound turned off on my computer. Next time just come on in and grab a beer from the fridge.

57
by jebmak :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:30am

If the Super Bowl matchup is "Who Dey vs. Who Dat (CIN-NO)", I might have to burn my TV.

58
by akn :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:32am

DVOA loves the Bears!

Seriously, though, I have no idea how Chicago's defensive DVOA is league average. Maybe it's just from being juxtaposed to last year's D.

62
by whckandrw (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:01am

Green Bay's offense is ranked 4th and the Bears bottled them up a few weeks ago when they knocked out Aaron Rodgers. The DVOA algorithm has no way of knowing that the Bears beat the Pack w/o Rodgers. They'd probably be slightly below average without that game.

66
by al (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 3:39am

Bears D has also faced NO and DET twice and were fairly respectable in those games (first DET game was 32-40 but a turnover fest). Their defense has looked bad, especially against the run, but the only time they really got lit up was against Washington.

Also (brace yourself for some true crackpot genius)... the Bears are bad at stopping the run and apparently good at intercepting passes, so teams run a lot against them, lowering their overall yards-per-play (evidence: Bears D has faced 4th-fewest passing attempts and 4th-most rushing attempts, and not because they've been playing from way behind; other explanations include windstorms and Seneca Wallace, but none of that affects the Lions or back-depleted Giants). Maybe it's one of those crazy things, like where teams have a better chance of winning giving their opponents a final possession up by 3 than by 4 because the possibility of a field goal encourages overly conservative play calling. The Bears are so bad at stopping the run that opposing offenses can't resist the urge to keep running. Washington can score a lot of points that way, but most teams are better off eschewing the single-wing for the more "thrilling" T formation (sorry, it's Washington-Chicago, I can't resist) and throwing the damn ball.

78
by Jimmy :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 10:18am

These are good points. I also think that Bears fans have gotten to used to watching quality defences and crappy offenses that we have little useful sense of perspective when presented with average on either side of the ball.

93
by Chip :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:22pm

I actually thought the Bears D. is the good counterpoint to HOU or CLE (good on standard stats bad on advanced stats). There are in he bottom 5-10 in standard stats but 13th in FO. advanced NFL Stats has them at 26th more in line with standard.

This one is perplexing to me. Is it a function of forcing more turnovers, generally being solid from a stop rate perspective and bad tackling? The latter would explain yardage given up but the former two would explain the stronger FO rank (that and SOS). Their Def doesn't feel like top half, particularly down most of their blue chip personnel.

71
by Bobman :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:20am

Playoff odds thoughts for the AFC. Somehow with fewer expected wins and a lower DVOA and one more loss currently, CIN has the inside track on #2 seed over NE and over current #2 holder IND (who have a lower DVOA). Interesting; must be future SOS. Funny how NOBODY has any chance at the #5 seed outside the AFCW.

How to make a Colts fan's head explode and have him hate life for about five solid years? If the current playoff seedings hold and Indy beats KC, they get the honor of traveling to DEN for the divisional game. If they lose to DEN, oh well, bravo! We were hit hard by key injuries but won a playoff game against a solid team and have a young core returning for next year. But if they beat Manning and the Broncos.... "Oh, God, please don't let them win... Oh God, please don't let them lose... Oh God, please let Manning have 8 TDs and a perfect game but a close loss to the Colts through no fault of his own... Oh God, kill me now. And keep me dead until the Beatles reunion tour." Regular season game, no problem. What might be Manning's final playoff game...? Oh God, please no....

76
by Andy (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 9:53am

Cincinnati beat New England and therefore would get the higher seed if they end up with identical records. Perhaps this explains the odds on the #2 seed?

104
by RickD :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:44pm

Also, the Bengals host the Colts in a few weeks. I expect the Bengals to be favored. If they won that, they would have the inside track on the #2 seed (presuming they don't lose in San Diego beforehand).

99
by Purds :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 3:59pm

When Manning played the Colts earlier this year, I thought going in that I would root for Manning. But, as the game continued to be close, I wanted the Colts to win more than I wanted my favorite player to win. I guess that's why I don't play fantasy football.
I think if they rematch for the AFCC, I will again start by hoping Manning wins, but if it's close, I'll convert to the team.

106
by TomC :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:53pm

And keep me dead until the Beatles reunion tour.

While we will never get a Beatles reunion, we may be getting the next best thing: A Monty Python reunion.

123
by Lyford :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 8:03am

While we will never get a Beatles reunion, we may be getting the next best thing: A Monty Python reunion.

We can't really get that, either, as Graham Chapman's been dead for 24 years...

129
by TomC :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 4:26pm

They did a whole season of shows without Cleese, so I don't think a reunion without Chapman (and this is no knock on Chapman) would somehow not count.

72
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 5:40am

Has there been any observable optic in Broncos defense since Von Miller's return? Small sample I know...

74
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 6:25am

As somebody who has Premium access, I can say that of the four games with Von Miller playing, they are four of the top five best games by the defense overall.

83
by TomC :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:29pm

It took me a while to figure out what you meant there and that it had nothing to do with Miller's awesome eyeglasses.

89
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:20pm

I had the same thought, and was about to answer:
"Well yes, there has been an increase in the number of optical devices in the locker room since Von Miller returned."

82
by Marcsman (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 12:20pm

I'd be the last person to tell you that the Giants are in any way a good team, but with Philly's rise, they now don't have a loss to a team outside the top 11. Other than the ghastly special teams, I really think they're more a mediocrity than a joke.

94
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 11/20/2013 - 2:37pm

NFL Films presents, "The 2013 New York Giants: More a Mediocrity Than a Joke."

Da Daaah Da Dah Dah, Da Daaah, Da Daaaah.... Da Daaah, Da Daaah Daaah Daaaaah...

Narrator (John Facenda preferably):
The Autumn Wind is a Giant,
Throwing picks just for fun.
He'll get knocked around and upside down,
And laugh when he's beaten and done.

128
by Rick S (not verified) :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 2:26pm

When looking at the top offensive DVOA teams ever, its interesting that only two of the twelve teams listed (Denver '98 & Dallas '93) won the SB and most of them never made it.

I am very surprised the '94 49ers did not make this list. I remember them being better, or perhaps it was the lopsided SB against SD that gives that perception.

130
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 4:54pm

Their mediocre run game probably weighs them down. They were an amazing 50.1% pass offense, but -0.8 rushing, for a total of 18.9% (I guess they tried to "establish the run".) Having the 28th-ranked schedule of defenses (only 28 teams in the league back them, mind you) probably didn't help.

131
by tuluse :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 7:35pm

Well being 13-3, the 49ers were probably in clock killing mode a good amount of the time. Now reason to throw if the game is not in doubt.

133
by coremill :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 12:12pm

They also started the season slowly. After 5 games they were 3-2 and the offense had failed to score more than 17 points in three of those games, and the 40-8 loss to Philadelphia in Week 5 is one of the worst DVOA games in history and drags their season averages down considerably. They had a comeback win in Detroit in Week 6 that turned the season around and after that they blew out just about every non-Dallas team they played.

135
by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 1:00pm

Yes, I was at that week 6 game. After the Lions were up 14-0, and Steve Young had to literally crawl off the field after a big hit, people wondered aloud if the 49ers run as a powerhouse was over. Then the Niners dominated the rest of the game, and the rest of the season.

138
by Coach Outlet Store Online (not verified) :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 7:01pm

L'offre de recrutement de fans Facebook via des applications virales d'HappyApps va ainsi

139
by doudoune moncler homme (not verified) :: Fri, 01/10/2014 - 2:04pm

et que nous avons fini les r

140
by Coach Outlet Online Store (not verified) :: Fri, 01/10/2014 - 10:28pm

Un bien bel exemple qui ne peut qu'inciter qu'

141
by sac longchamp (not verified) :: Sun, 01/12/2014 - 8:20am

13h59 : Le carnaval de Toulouse est annul