RSS Feed
DVOA Analysis
Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season
16 Sep 2008
Week 2 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
The Giants are on top of the latest DVOA ratings, thanks two huge wins over the Redskins and Rams. How good will those games look after we apply the opponent adjustments during the course of the season? Probably not quite this impressive, but we'll have to see.
Actually, what stands out after two weeks is not how good the Giants have been (or the Cowboys, or surprising Bills) but rather how bad the Rams have been. They've been monumentally, historically bad, only the second team since 1995 to have a VOA rating below -100% after Week 2. The other was the expansion Browns in 1999.
The Rams had a VOA below -100% in both Week 1 and Week 2. Unfortunately, I don't have a spreadsheet handy with VOA (i.e. no opponent adjustments) for every single game going back to 1995, and we won't know for a while how strong the adjustments are for playing the Giants and Eagles. However, there is only one team since 1995 that had two straight games with DVOA below -100%: The 2003 Arizona Cardinals, in Week 13 (28-3 loss to Chicago) and Week 14 (50-14 loss to San Francisco). Two other teams came close: the 2007 Dolphins (Weeks 13-14) and the 1996 Cardinals (Weeks 2-3).
One of the reasons we have not yet been able to update the Premium section with the 2008 stats is that the macro crashed while we were running the data output. Why the crash? Because the Rams have not had a single play in the red zone yet this year. That's right: The Rams suck so bad that they broke our programs.
Apologies for a short commentary again this week, but obviously I've been spending time trying to smooth out issues with the redesign launch. The good news is that we haven't had our usual Monday/Tuesday server issues, which means that the most important part of the redesign has proven successful.
* * * * *
Hey Boston FO readers! Come see me on the final stop of the PFP 2008 book tour, Wednesday at Northeastern's Snell Library at noon. I won't be there alone -- there will be two authors, and the other is former Giants tight end Mark Bavaro, who will be there to talk about his new novel. That should lead to some interesting conversation, eh?
* * * * *
Obviously, things aren't getting updated quite as quickly because of early season/relaunch hiccups, but all the team and individual stats pages are now updated through Week 2. Premium and playoff odds should be updated by tomorrow morning. Drive stats, ALY/ASR stats, and Loser League standings should be ready in a day or two. We're hoping to have all the past stats pages (non-Premium) imported within the next week.
DVOA vs. the spread listings in the Premium section will be updated weekly by Wednesday morning, although it might not get updated until Wednesday afternoon this week. Beginning this week, I will be listing both picks against the spread and straight picks of winners, from most confident to least confident.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through two weeks of 2008, 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 VOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS VOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season.
There are no opponent adjustments in VOA until the fourth week of the season, which is why it is VOA right now rather than DVOA. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.
DAVE is a formula which combines our preseason projection with current VOA to get a more accurate forecast of how a team will play the rest of the season. Right now, the preseason projection makes up 75 percent of DAVE (90 percent for Baltimore and Houston).
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 |
DAVE | RANK | W-L | OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | NYG | 70.0% | 9 | 22.1% | 6 | 2-0 | 36.7% | 4 | -27.4% | 3 | 5.9% | 8 |
| 2 | BAL | 69.6% | 6 | 9.8% | 12 | 1-0 | 13.6% | 12 | -58.0% | 1 | -2.0% | 22 |
| 3 | BUF | 56.1% | 5 | 3.1% | 16 | 2-0 | 19.8% | 7 | -26.3% | 5 | 10.0% | 3 |
| 4 | DAL | 50.4% | 4 | 21.3% | 7 | 2-0 | 48.9% | 2 | 3.3% | 16 | 4.8% | 10 |
| 5 | PIT | 47.4% | 7 | 16.8% | 9 | 2-0 | 18.8% | 8 | -26.6% | 4 | 2.0% | 14 |
| 6 | GB | 43.3% | 11 | 38.2% | 1 | 2-0 | 28.3% | 6 | -7.1% | 9 | 7.9% | 6 |
| 7 | ARI | 42.6% | 10 | 9.7% | 13 | 2-0 | 18.4% | 9 | -22.0% | 6 | 2.2% | 13 |
| 8 | PHI | 40.1% | 1 | 35.0% | 2 | 1-1 | 40.0% | 3 | 0.1% | 14 | 0.2% | 17 |
| 9 | NE | 37.7% | 8 | 27.6% | 3 | 2-0 | 15.7% | 10 | -13.8% | 8 | 8.2% | 5 |
| 10 | TB | 34.4% | 18 | 23.5% | 5 | 1-1 | 10.0% | 14 | -20.3% | 7 | 4.1% | 12 |
| 11 | TEN | 31.3% | 15 | 5.9% | 14 | 2-0 | -2.7% | 22 | -47.5% | 2 | -13.5% | 31 |
| 12 | DEN | 30.4% | 3 | 9.8% | 11 | 2-0 | 51.5% | 1 | 10.8% | 22 | -10.3% | 29 |
| 13 | SD | 15.7% | 13 | 23.8% | 4 | 0-2 | 31.0% | 5 | 28.1% | 28 | 12.8% | 1 |
| 14 | CHI | 8.5% | 12 | 0.5% | 19 | 1-1 | 0.7% | 17 | -6.3% | 10 | 1.5% | 15 |
| 15 | WAS | 1.6% | 24 | -6.6% | 22 | 1-1 | 15.4% | 11 | -0.3% | 13 | -14.1% | 32 |
| 16 | OAK | -0.6% | 30 | -17.9% | 24 | 1-1 | -0.3% | 20 | 10.0% | 21 | 9.7% | 4 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
DAVE | RANK | W-L | OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | ATL | -1.7% | 2 | -30.9% | 30 | 1-1 | 10.4% | 13 | 16.4% | 25 | 4.3% | 11 |
| 18 | MIN | -1.7% | 22 | 17.2% | 8 | 0-2 | 0.4% | 18 | -5.8% | 11 | -7.9% | 28 |
| 19 | CAR | -2.0% | 17 | 2.7% | 17 | 2-0 | 1.4% | 15 | 3.4% | 17 | 0.0% | 18 |
| 20 | NYJ | -8.7% | 14 | -5.9% | 21 | 1-1 | 1.0% | 16 | -1.6% | 12 | -11.2% | 30 |
| 21 | SF | -13.8% | 21 | -24.3% | 27 | 1-1 | -12.7% | 24 | 0.5% | 15 | -0.6% | 19 |
| 22 | IND | -17.5% | 19 | 10.2% | 10 | 1-1 | -7.4% | 23 | 5.1% | 19 | -5.0% | 23 |
| 23 | NO | -18.0% | 16 | -3.8% | 20 | 1-1 | 0.3% | 19 | 25.4% | 27 | 7.2% | 7 |
| 24 | JAC | -27.3% | 20 | 1.0% | 18 | 0-2 | -28.8% | 29 | 3.4% | 18 | 5.0% | 9 |
| 25 | SEA | -32.7% | 29 | 3.5% | 15 | 0-2 | -19.6% | 26 | 5.7% | 20 | -7.5% | 27 |
| 26 | MIA | -45.3% | 23 | -27.3% | 29 | 0-2 | -18.0% | 25 | 21.3% | 26 | -6.1% | 26 |
| 27 | CLE | -48.3% | 28 | -22.0% | 26 | 0-2 | -23.5% | 28 | 37.2% | 30 | 12.4% | 2 |
| 28 | KC | -52.5% | 25 | -25.7% | 28 | 0-2 | -37.3% | 30 | 14.0% | 24 | -1.3% | 21 |
| 29 | HOU | -59.6% | 26 | -8.5% | 23 | 0-1 | -22.1% | 27 | 32.2% | 29 | -5.3% | 24 |
| 30 | DET | -64.1% | 31 | -32.3% | 31 | 0-2 | -2.6% | 21 | 63.0% | 32 | 1.5% | 16 |
| 31 | CIN | -70.8% | 27 | -19.2% | 25 | 0-2 | -53.2% | 32 | 11.6% | 23 | -5.9% | 25 |
| 32 | STL | -101.6% | 32 | -46.0% | 32 | 0-2 | -37.9% | 31 | 62.8% | 31 | -0.9% | 20 |
vikies/colts
So last week Indianapolis was 19, and Minnesota was 22. After Indy beats the Vikings, they are now 22 and 18, respectively, almost swapping rankings.
I figured this might be the case. The Colts were consistently bad on offense most of the day then hit a couple big plays to win it, while the vikings were the the opposite. Prior to that the vikings sustained a lot of drives before bogging down.
Re: vikies/colts
I think its also about the lesser effect of the better Colts Preseason projection.
Re: vikies/colts
It's just a comment about VOA, not DAVE, so the projections don't affect it.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Looking back, I feel we just saw the 2 best teams in football last night, in the eagles and cowboys. I feel both teams will have dominant offenses and defenses this year
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Where's the evidence for them having dominant defenses?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Um, they both have swagger, and um, facemasks?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
You guys are reading it wrong. He clearly said that both teams will dominant offenses AND defenses. I agree that both have dominant offenses, and that both have defenses (after a fashion).
Defenses
I agree with the original post. I think that was more of a case of great offensive play than bad defense. I look at this like the Giants-Boys game in week 1 last year. A shootout between two normally good defenses. I would bet both defenses are top 10 in DVOA at the end of the year. Also, I would bet these two teams meet a third time this year (in the playoffs), because I think they're the best two teams in the NFC, and maybe the NFL. Time will tell.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
dominant defenses? based on what? their week one opponents (the browns and rams respectively)??? while the browns are a very good offense on paper I think we can all agree there are some real problems in Ohio right now. and as for the Rams... well anyway. the Eagles Offense will get tested this week and we'll know quite a bit more about their defense too. The Steelers a very solid on both sides of the ball and will put your "dominant offense and defense" theory to the test as far as the eagles go. as for the cowboys, I think the steelers eagles game will tell us a little something about them as well, if the eagles can't move the ball well against pittsburgh we will know Dallas's D is suspect (which is what I believe at this point)
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Ha, the Skins' special teams are in last place. I guess that's what happens when you can't punt, cover punts, return punts, or placekick. But at least Suisham's kickoffs are a little better than before. (He's on pace to set career highs in kickoff distance and touchbacks.)
(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Yeah, but you gotta love that kickoff distance!
We've got the Mike Nugent of punters! (Well not quite...)
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Can anyone explain why we replaced our punter instead of our kicker? This seemed like a bad choice even before the new guy started botching holds.
Oh well, at least we have Rock Cartright.
'Skins special teams
Well, there was rampant speculation that Suisham's kickoff distances last year were a product of Danny Smith's instructions to focus more on hang-time than on distance. Now, I have no way of knowing whether or not that was true, so take it with a grain of salt.
As for field goals, Suisham wasn't great, but he wasn't horrendous, either; in fact, he was just a smidge below league average. Considering his relative youth, I'm not sure they would be better off with any of the available replacements.
Re: 'Skins special teams
I attended the NO game and had a great close up view of suisham's first miss. It was a good kick then the freakiest random gust caught it in the air. The ball seemed to float in one place and start to go wide. I had assumed he just shanked the second one he missed but on the radio the announcers said that the holder was at fault. I don't think Suisham's been that bad really, and he is booming the kickoffs nicely this year.
The Skins Special Teams ratings are probably a function of the kick return fumbles more than anything.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
More proof that the Chargers D is killing them.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
As if we needed it. The Broncos were successful on over 60% of their plays against them on Sunday.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Yeah. With the injury to Merriman and Williams's decline, I think they need to rethink the 3-4. They don't have a great NT anymore, and they don't have good ILBs, but they have several solid DL players (just no full-time 3-4 noses) and even without Merriman they have better-than-average OLBs... as long as they don't have to carry the 3-4 load.
Re: 90% and 75% adjustments based on preseason predictions
I may have missed this, but were the weighting percetnages for the preseason tested for predictive power? It seems that it would be a number with some decimal places like 91.4% and 72.9% for a more accurate adjustment.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Wow, I can't believe how bad New Orleans looks. I figured they were at least average.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
BucNasty, playing without a full D will do that. But it's the O that's really underperforming. Deuce M looks like a major missing link -- that or the O line. Was D figured out that Brees height + bull rush = tips->int.
I'll bite on the CAR bait:
pnathers is clearly ranked too low because they beat TOW teams ranked above them!!! SCOREBORD is way better than this. ur stupid model forgot the way it works IRW. forest gump dumb. also, denver is cheats. can't u fix dumb calls into the stats?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
couldn't have said it better myself, awesome
hey! the Niners won!
You've got our W-L at 0-2.
Re: hey! the Niners won!
I thought that Aaron didn't like the niners but that is going a little far;-)
Re: hey! the Niners won!
There's something awesomely appropriate about seeing "ninerfan (not verified)"
Re: hey! the Niners won!
I had a similar reaction, but convinced myself they really did lose, since it seemed more in line with my expectations. I mean, J.T. O'Sullivan? Really?
Re: hey! the Niners won!
Sounds like "You mean Kurt Warner, really?" or "You mean Marc Bulger, really?"
JT O'Sullivan looks good passing the football. I stress "passing the football" because he has horrible pocket presence. Five or six of his sacks were caused because he didn't throw the ball away and just ran around the pocket until someone got him.
Re: hey! the Niners won!
He does love to hold that ball in his hand doesn't he? He coos softly to it as he clutches the rubberised polyeurethane to his bosom, telling it he will never let it go and that the pass rushers are simply jealous of what they have together.
What's really scary is that he hears the ball reciprocate and flutter its laces at him.
Re: hey! the Niners won!
I spent half the game yelling at O'Sullivan to "throw it away! throw it away!"
If the 49ers end up playing someone else at QB this year, I really think you could do a great concrete case study on just how much a QB can affect the adjusted sack rate. (I know FO has already been saying this, but it could be the opening line to the 49ers chapter in the 2010 book.)
Looking forward to this weekend: the Lions have a pretty bad pass rush, correct? It should be interesting to see how O'Sullivan fares in the pocket.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Validation that the Broncos' offense is badass while their defense and special teams are not.
Also, Kansas City ranked 30th in Offensive DVOA is a huge overestimation of their capabilities. I saw their game against the Raiders, and I have rarely seen such a pathetic display of offense.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Gotta say I wasn't really looking for that validation. That was quite a display of ineptitude by the defense and special teams. I've asked this before, but how do the Broncos never get any better on special teams? Shouldn't there be some sort of occasional variation that could give me cause for... Well, not hope that they'l' be good, that's going too far. But maybe a cause for less certainty that they will be totally awful?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Wow...TB at 5 (Dave). That means they're better than the Giants, Dallas and the Steelers. Who'd of thought it.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
DAVE loves him some Joey Galloway.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
How did the Ravens rise from 6 to 2 without even playing this week?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Teams like Philly and Atlanta that had dominant games in week 1 didn't maintain that pace. A 1-game sample is always going to have more very high and very low performances than a 2-game sample will.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Because DVOA is a rate stat, not a counting stat. Baltimore had a really, really, good game last week. They didn't do anything this week to screw up that average, although Ray-ray might have stabbed someone...
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Week 1: 69.6%
Week 2: 69.6%
It's tough to sustain a DVOA of 70%, so all of the teams that were above them fell while they stayed the same.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
You can't regress to the mean if you don't play, baby!
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Rex Grossman could. He can do anything he wants to.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I guess he doesn't want to start, eh?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
What's even funnier is when crap like that happens in the subjective power rankings around the webs. A few years ago, pretty early in the season the Broncos beat the Patriots, then had a bye. Over the bye, New England beat the Bengals. Which according to whoever made these rankings proved that New England was a great team, and that made Denver even better!!!!111!!one!!!. Long story short, Denver moved up like 4 spots (10th to 6th, I think) for not playing. I actually wrote Aaron an email thanking him for having sensical rankings that had the Broncos much lower when I saw that.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Well, that isn't exactly the same. Instead, it was subjective opponent adjustments which FO does except without the subjective part. Still, if Denver dominates New England and New England turns around and dominates a third team, FO will reward Denver for having dominated what turned out to be a tougher than expected opponent.
On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
I have been waiting a long time for the Giants to be atop the DVOA rankings. Now, post Super Bowl plus a few weeks to prove it wasn't a fluke, we finally are respected.
Heh. In all seriousness it's nice to be number 1 somewhere.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Why don't you go home and brag, maybe your parents will let you stay up extra late.
You won the super bowl and you're whining about "not being number one." Good freaking job. Go be happy somewhere.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Lay off him. I assume his "in all seriousness" comment implied he was being slightly sarcastic about "respect" and doesn't believe two weeks actually prove anything. It's nice to see your team #1 whenever it happens.
Looking ahead to the Giants' next 4 games, their DVOA rating might suffer more from the opponent adjustments than anything that happens on the field.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Yes. Sarcasm. A bit hard to communicate over just text but yes.
It's just nice to be on top of the DVOA list. I mean honestly... Do you expect the Giants to be back there any time soon? I do but I'm a Giants fan thinking with my expectations that we will start the season 6-0 and not lose any winnable games. My rational side says the Giants will be back to diddling around #10 especially once Defensive adjustments kick in.
I think the two games are a sign that maybe we weren't just good in the playoffs. I won't really know until we play a good team whats what.
Hell for all we really know the Rams are a hella good football team. Maybe the Giants and Eagles are just that much better than them..... I'll note the sarcasm right now just to avoid any future confusion.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
For me, it was just nice to see them blow somebody out. One of the reasons their DVOA never got too high last year was that they rarely (if ever) dominated supposedly inferior teams. Hopefully they are a better team this year. Or maybe the Rams really are some new kind of awful.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Are you the real Quincy, off the telly? Can you explain how an elderly pathologist gets so much hot tail?
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
I'm afraid Quincy's dead.
As for how he got so much tail - it was the 70s!
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
No just Quincy, not Quincy M.E. I'm also not the producer of Thriller or the 6th president.
Considering that I spend my downtime posting comments on a football statistics discussion board, I probably can't explain how anyone gets tail. Although I might be able to diagram it.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
"Considering that I spend my downtime posting comments on a football statistics discussion board, I probably can't explain how anyone gets tail. Although I might be able to diagram it."
I believe we have a winner. The first bit was fantastic, but the last sentence really put it over the top. I salute you, sir.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Nice.
Re: On Behalf Of Giants Fans Everywhere
Yeah, the PFP chapter on Guts and Stomps came to mind while I saw the results of this game. I'm hoping that the team has taken a step forward.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
It's way to early to conclude anything based on this, but it is interesting how steep the drop-off is between #12 (DEN at 30.4% VOA) and #15 (WAS at 1.6%)
Re: Packers Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Much as I love the Pack, I find it difficult to believe they have the #6 Special Teams. They had a FG blocked against Minnesota and the ball went thru the punter's hands for a safety against Detroit. The punting is average. But maybe I'm just confused.
Re: Packers Week 2 DVOA Ratings
You've mentioned 2 mistake plays, but that is largely ofset by the huge punt return TD.
They've also had great kickoffs, with lots of touchbacks and good coverage, solid kick returns, and the punts they have made have had great sideline placement and good coverage to prevent any significant returns. Plus they've made their other FGs.
Re: Packers Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I can believe. Besides those two notable gaffs, I've thought their special teams have been excellent. My impression has been that the punting has been good. Nice directional kicks with little to no return. Lots of solids returns, with of course the spectacular punt return TD.
Re: Packers Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Without knowing the exact formula for special teams rankings, I'd say Mason Crosby's kickoff (plus the Blackmon return in the Vikings game) have gone a long way to balancing out GB's ranking.
I haven't seen every team yet, but it sure seems like Mason Crosby has more touchbacks from kickoffs than just about any kicker this year.
Re: Packers Week 2 DVOA Ratings
According to the stats page, GB has only slightly below positive values on FG/XP, punts, and kick returns while being very good on kickoffs and punt returns. There you go.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Opponent adjustments don't go into effect for another few weeks, right? In which case, I think the tables are supposed to say VOA instead of DVOA.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
SF and MIN W-L records now fixed.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Remember those 1-15 Panthers from a few years back?
The Rams' DAVE projection is TWICE AS BAD as them.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
OK, Buffalo is officially scary. The seventh ranked offense, fifth ranked defense, third ranked special teams. And the two teams they beat ought to end up being pretty decent over the year (unless we were all really wrong about JAX), so opponent adjustments probably won't knock them down that much.
On the other hand, New Englad probably will get knocked down once opponent adjustments get better.
Maybe all the talk about New England not winning the division isn't premature...most pundits just had the wrong team!
(Not to brag, but I didn't. I didn't, and still don't, think much of the J.E.T.S., but even before the season I was talking about how Buffalo should be an above average team).
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I think that Seattle and the Jaguars will end up lower than anticipated because of the depth of injury at WR and O-Line. Those scenarios would be what produces the lower end of simulations. I think the Bills are good, but I am still not completely convinced that their defense is as good as advertised having faced teams with serious injury problems. It would seem that their corners could be abused by big, tall receivers that don't suck (Matt Jones). I think that their pass rush is good enough to compensate, but if Stroud goes down, they will have problems.
Their offense has surprised me. Edwards has shown greater accuracy and decision making skills. He holds on to the ball longer than last year when he has time, the prime example being where he hit Lee Evans for the big gain right before the TD. He showed excellent feel for the rush, moving to the safest place in the pocket to let the route develop. Last year he would ditch the ball at almost any sign of trouble, the anti-JP. Now, he adjusts well for the rush.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
To be clear, Matt Jones is a big tall receiver that sucks. That could have been confusing.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
True, he does suck. Not only that, he also does blow!
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Don't forget that the Bills could very well start 5-1 or 6-0 - their next six weeks are Oakland, at St. Louis, at Arizona, bye, SD (at home) and at Miami. Other than SD, that's a completely creampuff schedule.
After that, their schedule gets harder (NEx2, NYJx2, @Denver), but they also have KC, SF and Miami again. After getting through the first 2 games 2-0, they should be in drivers seat for a wild card, if not the division, depending on how those games vs. NYJ and NE go.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I don't think we were wrong about Jax, but I do think that this is not the team that was predicted. I've always thought that Garrard's numbers were inflated because he constantly had the benefit of passing against teams gearing to stop MJD and Taylor. Losing those lineman means losing a dominating run game, and that means more nickle and dime.
I agreed with you that Buffalo was going to be pretty good, and i had them penciled in as #2 in the division. (I didn't think Favre was going to make a huge difference...he can't play defense). Now, with the Pats losing Brady, who knows.
Still, I think Buffalo's numbers are inflated by playing a Seattle team that, despite continued projections, just isn't that good, and a Jax team that isn't the same team the projection was for.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Neither Seattle nor Jax is as good as their DAVE numbers would suggest, simply because of injuries. Jax in particular is in deep shit, as they have a very difficult schedule and they have no O-line. They have a lot of tougher games coming: in addition to the AFC South, they have the AFC North and the NFC North, which means games with Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland, Minnesota, Chicago, and Green Bay. And they have to go to Denver.
I would not be surprised to see them finish 6-10 or worse. The NFL is too competitive for a team to get by with that many injuries.
(Yes, I ignored the Bengals and Lions, which is what we should all do until the Humane Society is called to put them down.)
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
And yeah, Buffalo could well get into the playoffs with their light schedule. I think it's clear they are stronger than the Jets and Dolphins, so the question is how they match up against the Brady-less Pats.
10 wins is very realistic for this Bills team. Maybe 11. With all the injuries to the top AFC teams, the Bills are a legitimate playoff contender.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Odd to see the Steelers ST rated 14th. I'm sure that will change for the worse by the end of the season, probably after this week's game when DeSean Jackson runs back 4 punts for TDs.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
No offense, but do you watch or follow any games? All they've done so far is shut down Andre Davis and Josh Cribbs, who were the top 2 KR in the league last year. I guess that could have been done with nothing but smoke and mirrors, or maybe they've improved their coverage units with an infusion of new guys (like Keyaron Fox, Donovan Woods, William Gay, Anthony Madison, Timmons, et al.)
Maybe it all falls apart this week, but so far it's looked much better and I don't know how they could have done any better. Also, the return game is still mediocre at best, but Jeff Reed is money -- as shown by his 48-yard FG in the hurricane remnants the other night.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I do watch games. I'm not commenting on their play this year, but more on the fact that special teams have been a mess for the last few years. Maybe they've finally got some competency on special teams now but I'm not ready to believe it yet.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Not if Jackson throws the ball away before he scores.
Yes I'm still bitter about that play.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Tell me about it. I am one of the mugs that had Donovan on his FF team. Lost the head-to-head by one point.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I am definitely surprised to see Pittsburgh with a positive ST DVOA, but only because of previous years. Watching them this year, it seems pretty justified. The coverage teams have improved immensely, mostly because they have better ST/backups than last year, and some starters even play on coverage (James Harrison, for one). Tomlin figured out it was more about personnel than practice.
Seriously, I couldn't be happier about this. That +2% even includes the five 50+ yard punts by Cleveland due to the crazy wind this week. That's not going to happen every week. My cup runneth over!
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
So Carolina won despite lower VOA than their opponent again? Great coaching? Extra swagger? Voodoo?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Cheerleaders.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
After watching the Fins on Sunday, I'm in shock that they are ranked all the way up at 26. I cannot even begin to describe how horrible they were.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Yes, but they played close to the Jets; and look at the teams behind them. KC lost at home to the Raiders. Cincinnati looks like utter garbage. Detroit is giving up 1000 points a game. And the Rams . . . .
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
So Carolina is the worst 2-0 team out there? I haven't seen their games, but are they really worse than washington? amazing.
Everybody dies, but not everybody lives.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Yes they won both their opening contests, but the Chargers are probably pretty pissed that they didn't put them away, and the Bears will probably feel the same way (damn you Olsen). They played well at times (especially late) but also got smacked up and down the field for worryingly long periods of both their opening games.
Having said that Stewart looked very good and this team is still waiting for the return of its best player. Trying to account for Stewart and Smith at the same time is going to make defensive coordinators dizzy, and Delhomme looks back to normal after his surgery so the offense could be pretty handy. I still have concerns about their defense, mainly caused by only having one lineman teams have to worry about double teaming. Peppers played well against the Bears but couldn't get to Orton because the rest of the line wasn't generating enough pressure to force the Bears to change their blocking scheme.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Did you watch the games? If anyone's pissed about not putting them away, it should be Carolina. Against the Chargers, they controlled the line and TOP. It was only in the fourth quarter that the Chargers were able to do anything. And as far as being smacked "up and down the field", the Bears first two drives were decent but only resulted in 3 points. After those two drives, they were pretty much done for the day.
The Panther's certainly have some areas that need work but I would hardly say they were smacked around for long periods of time in either of those games.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Maybe the Chargers aren't as applicable to my original point, but the Bears were cruising until Olsen decided he didn't care too much for holding the ball. My point is more that the Panthers didn't look like a good team at all for most if not all of a whole quarter, if not more. Better teams than the Bears will have beaten them before the Panthers get their game together.
As for the Chargers game, Tomlinson and Gates are both clearly not the same players while trying to play throught turf toe and Merriman was hardly a factor. Top teams missing top talent aren't top teams anymore. And lets face it the Chargers played like crap.
I saw some good things from the Panthers (see earlier post), but to answer your original question, yes I do watch the games.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Tomlison wasn't playing through turf toe in that game as he didn't hurt it until the final drive. "Top team's missing top players" - don't forget Smith didn't play and the Panthers also lost their left tackle so they had their own personel problems to deal with. Also don't forget that while the Chargers did score 24 points, that is still far less than what the Chargers scored against Denver (38) and that was without a healthy Tomlinson.
The Bears had drives of: 62, 84, -8, -2, -1, 26, 23, 9, 7, 15, 3, -4 and 9. Two good first drives is hardly cruising.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Two good first drives is hardly cruising.
It is when they are consecutive and split only by a 3 and out.
The Bears had drives of: 62, 84, -8, -2, -1, 26, 23, 9, 7, 15, 3, -4 and 9.
The Bears outgained the Panthers 146 yards to (guess what) zero yards in the first quarter and they blocked a punt which they returned for a touchdown. That is pretty much a definition of getting your arse handed to you. That is what I meant by getting slapped up and down the field, and there isn't really a cogent argument against it. If a team plays like that for more than a quarter they will lose every game they play. Fortunately for the Panthers they woke up and the Bears started making stupid mistakes (12 penalties, two fumbles, several dropped balls that killed drives).
I also thought the officials did the Panthers a few favours, especially the 25 yard completion down to the goal line where the only contact Wharton had with Tommie Harris was having his forearm around Harris' neck as he ran straight past him. I suspect however that you can probably think of a few calls that cost the Panthers so maybe that one is a wash.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Yes, the Panthers did get their arses' handed to them in the first quarter. All I can say is it's a good thing games last 4 quarters instead of one!
The Bears did start making stupid mistakes but then the Panther's did for the first half as well. Here's how their possessions went in the first half: False start; False start and illegal procedure; false start and illegal formation; false start; illegal formation and false start. That was just the first half. And then in the second half, they had a TD called back for holding. Needless to say, they had as many, if not more stupid mistakes as Chicago - and yet they still one.
Can't comment on the calls as I think it's impossible to prove calls cost a game - unless it was the Chargers game of course.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
and yet they still one. Only just, against a Bears team that as you point out didn't exactly get a lot done after the first quarter. That is why the Panthers don't have an amazing DVOA rating. Do you still think they should be ranked much higher?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Why is Bal listed as having only played one game - did they get a bye already?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Whoa, what rock were you hiding under?
BAL-HOU was postponed to Nov. 9 because of Hurricane Ike.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Ike for President. Ike for President. Ike for President.
You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President.
You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President.
You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President.
Second best of the worst
So the Vikings are second best of the worst (teams that are 0-2). After losing to Carolina next week we will see if they can hold on to that position.
When Gus Frerrotte is the only possible answer, the question has to be very, very ugly.
Re: Second best of the worst
You mean like "What quarterback is most likely to injure himself by head-butting a stadium wall?"
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
So ... the good news for the Lions is ... um ... well, special teams aren't quite as bad ... er ... the offense ... um ... yeah.
The bad news is that they'll have to play the remaining games.
The loss to Atlanta probably won't look very good once DVOA comes out. Not sure about the coming loss to SF, but that could fall into the same category.
On the bright side, the worse the Lions play, the more the value of the franchise will sink, and thus the more attractive it will be to potential buyers, one of whom will step forward and make Mr. Asleep-at-the-wheel-since-the-'60s an offer he can't refuse.
Right? Right?
Darn these cross-ownership rules. I was hoping Cuban would take an interest in football.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Interest in a football franchise isn't the problem, the owner ever being willing to sell it is.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
After that MNF game, I'd just like to clarify that I'm completely committed to National Jump to Conclusions Week: Part Deux. And as a result I'd like to ask if anyone remembers the last time the two best teams in the league came from the same division? Or even broader, when was the last time the best two teams came from the NFC?
As an Eagles fan, I'm kinda disappointing in myself that I didn't take a loss to the stinking Cowboys harder. But I'm even more excited for this season than I was before hand. In my heart, I felt this team was good enough to be a force but my brain just kept telling me my heart is a hopeful idiot. Well take that brain! How you like me now?!?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Carolina is clearly ranked too low because of their Win/Loss Record. The Playoff Tie-Breaker System is way better than this.
Please explain how the 2-0 Panthers are ranked below two 0-2 teams, including six places below the team they already beat?
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Was that a real question? They played poorly and sneaked by a couple teams that played worse. You don't get rewarded for wins in DVOA, just playing well.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
Apparently you didn't watch the games.
Re: Week 2 DVOA Ratings
I think that was the most depressing introduction ever.
Save us Marshall Faulk!
-Rams fan SoulardX
Panthers
That's the thing. They didn't play poorly at all. They beat two good teams, two teams which will most likely finish the year in the playoffs, two teams with bruising defenses.Most likely the adjustments will raise them quite a bit.
But it brings up another point. Does the definition of success favor one style of play over another?
Re: Panthers
Agreed (except maybe for the Bears-in-the-playoffs bit). I'm actually surprised that the Panthers ended up on the wrong side of the VOA ledger on Sunday, but my memory is heavily weighted by the 4th quarter, where Jonathan Stewart was having his way, and the Bears couldn't convert a 2nd-and-1.
Re: Panthers
They were also the beneficiary of fumble luck. They recovered two fumbles when the Bears were driving and in field goal range.
Re: Panthers
I know I keep reading here that fumble recovery is a matter of luck but I'm not too sure. I would guess that the defense has better odds of recovery as there are more defensive players around the ball as it comes out - at least once its crossed the line of scrimmage. In both of Olsen's fumbles, there were two to three Panthers around him as the ball came out. I would think that would give the defense a better chance of recovery wouldn't it?
Re: Panthers an