RSS Feed
NOW ON SALE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
Most Recent FO Features
» The Week in Quotes: February 9, 2010
The Week in Quotes wraps up with a look at the good, the bad, and the weird from the Super Bowl.
Most Recent Extra Points
01 Jan 2006
FO Mailbag
by Aaron Schatz (and the FO staff)
Time for another look at the Football Outsiders mailbag. We get a lot of e-mail, and there are a lot of comments on the discussion threads, so I apologize if your question doesn't get answered. There simply are too many good questions that require well thought out answers. The best way to get your question answered at this point is to use the contact form. If it is a question not related to the DVOA stats, it is more likely to be answered if you send it to one of the other writers, not me.
Be aware that we reference plenty of our innovative FO stats here, not to mention their unfamiliar terminology, so if you are a recent addition to the readership you might want to read this first. All numbers below are through Week 16.
There were a number of questions about how DVOA works in the discussion thread for DVOA ratings two weeks ago, so I wanted to respond to them. Let's start with this post, where reader MME is responding to another reader who felt the DVOA system was subjective, not objective, because at some point we had to make subjective decisions about the values of certain plays in the formula.
MME: Aaron already explained himself, but I thought I’d point out what I believe are misunderstandings on your part. (Aaron, of course, can correct me if I’m wrong.)
“Offense, defense, and special teams are all weighed equally in total team DVOA. A reasonable fan could argue that the three should be weighed 40/40/20, 45/45/10, or any other combination. Making them each a third of the total is a subjective assessment of how much each contributes to winning.�
Take a look at the numbers on the DVOA table. If you notice, the DVOA numbers for off/def get much larger than the ones for special teams (which generally stay less than 10%). I believe Aaron has stated that this is because the formula for ST ratings takes into account that there are far fewer ST plays than Off/Def plays, and thus the weighting you speak of is in the numbers, thus it makes sense to add them up equally in the overall rating. (Also, I believe Aaron has stated that ST ratings are about 1/7 of total weight, with Off/Def getting 3/7 each.)
“It’s subjective to assess success rates based on individual plays rather than each series. For example, a set of downs starting from first-and-ten that results in gain of six, gain of two, no gain, punt earns a success rate of 66% (the punt is excluded, yes?) while a set that results in no gain, no gain, gain of 12 produces a success rate of 33%. Obviously in that case you’d rather have the “less successful� series. Again, I’m not making a case against DVOA here, just saying these are decisions someone has to make that aren’t entirely objective.�
Yes, the choice of what constitutes "success" is subjective, but is mostly based on fan’s understanding of football. However, I believe you are confusing Aaron’s Running Back Success Rate stat with DVOA:
In the example you gave, the first series would be broken down so that the first play gets a little bit more than one "success point" because it got more than 45% of yards needed on first down (say, 1.5 points). The second play would get less than one, as it failed to make 60% of yards needed on second down (say, .75 points). The third down play of course gets nothing. Thus, the total "success" for the series is about 2.25.
The second series is different. The first two plays obviously get 0 success points. The third play actually gets a little over 3 success points (Aaron, somewhere, pointed out a first down is worth 3 success points regardless of what down it is gained on). So this series has 3 points worth of ’success’, which is more than the first series.
And just to make it clear, the RB Success Rate stat for both series (assuming all plays are running plays) would be equal, as only the first down play of the first series is considered "successful" and only the third down play of the second drive is considered "successful."
I hope that makes the math a little more clear. Also, I kind of posted this so Aaron could confirm if my understanding is correct. Knowing how DVOA works is what makes me believe in its legitimacy.
Aaron Schatz: That about explains it. MME is pretty much right on both of these issues.
The special teams numbers are based on actual points and yards, not a system of "success points," because they don't need to take first downs into account. That total of points needs to be multiplied by some coefficient and added to offense and defense to produce total DVOA. To figure out what this coefficient was, I simply ran a regression analysis. It's been re-run several times as DVOA gets tweaked and we have more years of data, so it has changed every so often, and it may change again. I'll fully admit that I do not have complete confidence in the multiplier for special teams. And yes, in the regression a team's total rating ends up being three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.
I get a lot of questions about the system that ask something along the lines of, "Doesn't your system penalize teams that throw incomplete passes on first and second down and then get a big gain on third down?" As MME points out, the answer is usually no, because the value of a first down conversion is always very high. It's not three points, but it is very close to three -- since 80 percent of needed yards is two points, and 11+ yards is three points, a play that gets 100 percent of needed yards but isn't 11+ yards is something like 2.8 points. The consistent team will usually have a little more value, but that makes sense. The value of three straight four-yard plays should be higher than the value of two incompletes followed by a 12-yard pass, because you can't build an offense around being terrible two-thirds of the time and hoping that the good plays you have every so often just happen to come when you desperately need them to keep a drive going. The best teams gain yards consistently and stop the other team from gaining yards consistently.
Nuk: I noticed that among the worst games of the season, there were ratings below -100%. Are these percentages at all? Percentage of what? How can the percentage be below -100%?
Aaron Schatz: First of all, no, those are not percentages. That's because the rating for a team for the entire season or an individual game is actually three ratings combined: OFFENSE - DEFENSE + SPECIAL TEAMS. So a team with a bad offense (very negative) and bad defense (very positive) will end up with a rating below -100% for the game.
However, I should point out that you can have a rating below 100% for just OFFENSE or DEFENSE, though it is very rare. That's because some plays, like loss of yards or turnovers, have negative values. What DVOA does is add together the value of each play that a team has in the game and NFL average value for each situation that a team has in the game. Then you get this formula:
--------------------------
AVG NFL VALUE
If the team's value for all the plays is LESS than the average NFL value, you end up with a negative number. And if a team has had a game SO BAD that the team value for the game is actually BELOW ZERO, you end up with a number below -100%. If a team has a game so strong that they end up with more than twice the average NFL value for the situations in the game, you end up with a number above 100%. (The opponent adjustments also play into this, allowing games to move up and down a bit.)
Only three offensive performances this year have been so bad that they register as -100% before considering defense and special teams: Houston's loss to Buffalo in Week 1, San Francisco's loss to Indianapolis in Week 5, and Philadelphia in their ridiculous 17-16 win over St. Louis in Week 15, the game that offense forgot (for both teams). One game has offense above 100%, San Diego in their Week 3 win over the Giants.
On the defensive side there are no games above 100% and only one game below -100%, the Giants when they obliterated the Redskins in Week 8.
Chucky: Is there an FO-approved adjustment from DVOA differential to actual NFL points? VarlosZ (comment #44 in the linked thread) seems to think so, but I don’t remember seeing it.
Aaron Schatz: There is and there isn't. I've worked a couple times on creating a multiplier to turn my system into actual NFL points, but these attempts have never been about DVOA. That's because DVOA is a percentage that represents value per play, and to measure points, you need to take into consideration how many plays a team is going to run in an average game. That's why I always tell people who ask about how much DVOA equals an actual NFL point, "it's more complicated than that." This became an issue in the off-season when I came up for a method that would turn DVOA into "adjusted points per game." We put this in the book, thinking we were going to switch to this new format, but then I became unsure of my math, and when we brought it up, a majority of the readers didn't seem to want to switch from "percentage" DVOA to "adjusted points per game" DVOA. I guess I'll have to re-calculate and make a final decision on this in the off-season. In the meantime, a very, very, very loose formula says that every 1% of DVOA is worth .264 points. But this isn't quite definite and I am not responsible for anyone who uses this formula to bet a point spread and then loses their money.
David Brude: I noticed that only about 10% points separates Manning from Palmer in DVOA yet the total team pass offenses are about 20% apart. What causes the difference in the team DVOA since those guys have basically played almost all of the snaps?
Aaron Schatz: First of all, let's look at the numbers after Week 16:
| IND | CIN | |
| Manning/Palmer passing DVOA | 43.1% | 35.1% |
| Team passing DVOA | 56.2% | 33.0% |
| Team passing "1st order" DVOA | 51.4% | 32.5% |
As many readers know, back in Week 12 I changed the opponent adjustment system for team DVOA so that the opponent adjustment is based on not just your opponent but their other opponents. But I won't have a chance to do this for individual stats until the off-season. As you can see, that's part of the reason why the gap between Manning and Palmer is smaller than the gap between Indianapolis and Cincinnati. The other reason is fumbles. Cincinnati receivers have fumbled nine times. Indianapolis receivers have fumbled just once. For those of you paying attention, Indianapolis receivers fumbled more times in last year's playoff loss to New England than they have in the entire 2005 regular season. Receiver fumbles show up in team passing numbers, but individual quarterbacks do not get penalized for them.
Bencoder: Do you use a macro to generate your final tables or do you have to plug the numbers in by hand?
Aaron Schatz: Once upon a time, I did everything by hand. That changed in the middle of last season. I figure once a year I should publicly thank John Argentiero, the man who has put in an absurd amount of time building complicated Excel macros that build all the stat tables and spit them out as HTML. For all this work, he gets the colossal payment of one free copy of the book. He's the man. (Just so folks know, the code to spit out HTML for adjusted line yards wasn't built until last week, which is why those pages were updated less frequently than others.)
Craig Birkemeier: In the last mailbag, you mentioned the record for teams taking the wind in overtime. Out of curiosity, what is the record for teams taking the ball in overtime? I'd assume it is above .500, but an actual number would be helpful in seeing just how dumb it is to take the wind.
Michael David Smith: In the history of NFL overtime, the team that wins the toss wins the game 52.5% of the time, the team that loses the toss wins the game 43.4% of the time, and the game ends tied the rest of the time.
Both teams have at least one possession 69.2% of the time.
The team that receives the opening kickoff drives down the field and scores on the first possession 27.7% of the time.
The team that has to kick off wins the game without ever being on offense 2.1% of the time (that has happened eight times -- five times on interception returns for touchdowns, and once each on a fumble recovery, a blocked punt and a blocked field goal).
If you're interested in a better way of doing NFL overtime, here's my suggestion, which happens to be the first article I ever wrote for FO.
Chris Brose: I have a question about Week 14's power rankings. Actually, it's not about the rankings as much as it is something you did with them. In the commentary, you included a list of the 10 worst games and the 10 best games. Among the 10 best games, you included Seattle over San Francisco 41-3. However, Seattle beat Philly 42-0, and the Eagles are a better team than the 49ers. Why is the Seattle-San Francisco game on the 10 best list, while the Seattle-Philly game didn't even rate a mention?
Aaron Schatz: I actually got this question from a few different people. The DVOA metrics give a large penalty for fumbles and interceptions but they don't consider the length of fumble or interception returns. The length of a turnover return is in large part random, based not on the defender's ability to pick off a pass but instead various other factors: where the offensive linemen happened to be situated when the pass was thrown, how well the defensive players can block, how well the offensive players can suddenly turn into defensive tacklers, and so forth. I don't think, for example, that the ability to tackle a cornerback after a pick is really demonstrative of the quality of an offense.
Anyway, 28 of the 42 points Seattle scored in that game were the direct result of turnovers. I'm not even talking about turnovers that give the offense a short field -- even if the offense gets the ball on the opponent's 25-yard line, it still takes some skill to put the ball in the end zone. But Seattle had the 72-yard Dyson interception return for a touchdown, the 38-yard Tatupu interception return for a touchdown, the 32-yard Boulware interception return that was practically a touchdown (teams almost never fail to score a touchdown from first-and-goal on the two-yard line), and the 25-yard Dyson fumble return for a touchdown.
So when you consider just the turnovers, not the touchdown returns, Seattle ends up with a DVOA for the game of 67.9%, while Philadelphia's DVOA is -52.0%.
Someone else asked in one of the threads (I can't remember which one) where the Cleveland-Pittsburgh game would fall on the list of the year's best and worst games. Based on current opponent adjustments, Cleveland had the 11th-worst game of the year that day, while Pittsburgh had the sixth-best game of the year at 118.5% DVOA.
Steve: The explanation of DVOA on this site, clearly identifies that each play has a different value based on its situation (e.g. gaining eight yards on third-and-10 is not as valuable as gaining two yards on third-and-1). DVOA tries to standardize this situational valuation - I think that is good. However, is the valuation comprehensive enough? And should it (could it) vary from team (or head coach) to team? Should it vary from game to game (interconference worth less than intradivision)? Should it vary based on a mathematical probability of whether winning/losing the game will affect the liklihood of making the playoffs, gaining HFA, getting a bye? For example one head coach may be more inclined to hide his team’s true strengths than another coach. And in doing so, the true power of the team may need a different calculation than other teams. I believe this to be the case, but have no idea how one would quantify such an attribute.
Aaron Schatz: The answer to this question is that my head hurts. Listen, there are a lot of places in the DVOA system where the edges get smoothed in an attempt to simplify things a little bit. You can't build a system where the baseline for each play is based on a sample size of two or three plays. And I'm not trying to measure the impact of a play on winning, per se. I'm trying to balance this with an attempt to also give DVOA some predictive value by softening the impact of very rare, unrepeatable plays. (This is why, for example, interceptions returned for touchdowns count the same as any other interceptions.)
By the way, this is the answer to another popular question, "Why don't you just measure every play by the amount that it changes the probability of each team winning the game?" I don't know if a player's performance in close games is really more predictive than his performance in blowouts. Remember, normal DVOA is slightly more predictive than estimated wins, which takes these things into account. A system like this would give Kyle Orton more value because his defense could keep games close in the fourth quarter, and they would make the LaDainian Tomlinson of 2002-2003 look like a terrible player because he gained all those yards in totally meaningless situations where the Chargers were behind by three touchdowns. What, Larry Fitzgerald sucks because the Cardinals have no defense so he's never in close games? (By the way, check out what a good year Larry Fitzgerald is having.)
As for the question of changing the valuation of plays based on the personal strategies of each head coach, what am I, Professor X? I don't have his kind of wheelchair budget.
Charles Jake: We all know that 1000-yard seasons don't mean much anymore thanks to longer seasons and inflated offensive numbers. Would it be possible to come up with a number of yards for today that would be as significant as 1000 used to be?
Benjy Rose: I believe the correct answer is: total yards don’t matter and aren’t a very good measuring stick for a running back. Total yards are more of an endorsement (or indictment) of a rushing offense, consisting primarily of an offensive scheme/plan (e.g. Denver, Atlanta, last year’s Jets), a quality offensive line for the running game (same), and a running back(s) that fit the system.
Mike Tanier: The hard head answer is to say that the 1000-yard standard goes back to the 12-game season, so a quick 1000 times 16 divided by 12 yields 1333 yards.
Of course, there are other factors, the most significant being that two- and three-back systems were much more common up until the early 80s. Offensive levels used to be lower, but the percent of rushing plays was much higher. And of course Benjy is right about total yards as a measure of a running back's performance.
David Hess: Totally off topic, but you know what would be cool? A version of DVOA that only includes plays against teams that are in the top half (or third or whatever) of the normal DVOA rankings. Kind of like when they show college basketball teams' records against teams in the top 50 of the RPI. I know STOMPS (big wins over bad teams) are supposed to be a better predictor of playoff success than GUTS (close wins over good teams). But I would think that teams that performed well (regardless of win/loss) against good teams would tend to do well in the playoffs. I could be way off, of course.
Aaron Schatz: OK, let's try it. This is actually a very good year to do it because there is such a clear gap between the good or mediocre teams and a bunch of very bad teams. The gap isn't really between 16 and 17, though, it is between 21 (Minnesota) and 22 (Cleveland). The DVOA gap there is the biggest one between any two teams except for the gap between San Francisco and everyone else. Above the gap, every team has a winning record except for a team that was good early (Philadelphia), a team that was good late (Baltimore), and a team with a huge schedule adjustment (Oakland). Below the gap, every team is 5-11 or worse.
So, I took out games against the 11 worst teams and here's what we get. I hope nobody minds that to save time, I only re-did offense and defense; the special teams rating here is the normal one. The three teams with losing records aren't listed, but games against them are included in the ratings. Black is weighted DVOA, blue is full-season DVOA. Ready to be surprised?
| TEAM | WEIGHTED DVOA |
RK | TOTAL DVOA |
RK | TEAM | WEIGHTED DVOA |
RK | TOTAL DVOA |
RK | |
| JAC | 53.4% | 1 | 43.7% | 2 | SD | 14.0% | 10 | 23.7% | 7 | |
| DEN | 39.6% | 2 | 30.7% | 5 | PIT | 9.8% | 11 | 9.8% | 12 | |
| SEA | 37.8% | 3 | 32.5% | 4 | NE | 8.1% | 12 | 8.1% | 15 | |
| IND | 37.6% | 4 | 39.2% | 3 | TB | 2.5% | 13 | 8.4% | 14 | |
| CIN | 36.0% | 5 | 45.3% | 1 | DAL | 2.1% | 14 | 9.8% | 13 | |
| KC | 35.1% | 6 | 26.0% | 6 | MIA | -1.3% | 15 | 11.3% | 11 | |
| WAS | 23.3% | 7 | 17.1% | 9 | CAR | -2.6% | 16 | 3.0% | 17 | |
| CHI | 22.5% | 8 | 12.5% | 10 | ATL | -4.6% | 17 | 3.1% | 16 | |
| NYG | 20.5% | 9 | 22.1% | 8 | MIN | -26.2% | 18 | -42.6% | 18 |
The Jaguars demonstrate why this type of exercise can often be a bit silly. Can you guess how many games Jacksonville has played this year against teams in the top 21 of DVOA? Seven. That's all. Only two of the Jaguars' last nine games count on the chart above: a 30-3 whipping of Baltimore and a 26-18 loss to Indianapolis. Otherwise, they've played the Rams, Cardinals, Browns, 49ers, Titans, and the Texans twice.
The Jaguars are one team that looks better when you only consider games against good opponents. The Bears are the other, moving from 13th to 8th in weighted DVOA. You can also see here how Minnesota's midseason surge was just a bunch of wins over bad teams.
Anthony Coleman: In your opinion, where does Marvin Harrison rank among history's greatest receivers?
Aaron Schatz: I wonder if Harrison will suffer from being connected to Peyton Manning, since there will be a bit of an assumption that Manning made Harrison. You don't have that with Jerry Rice, because he played so absurdly long and with three well-known quarterbacks. But by the end of his career, Harrison will be second or third in all-time receiving yards (he's tenth, 1700 yards from third), second in touchdowns (he's already third). I'm guessing that a majority of people will consider him the third-greatest receiver of all time, behind Rice and Don Hutson, but there will be a sizeable minority who disagree, favoring Cris Carter or Tim Brown or Lance Allworth, or maybe even Rod Smith. (I'm deliberately not doing a huge research project here, because I think this should spawn some fun discussion.)
62 comments, Last at 05 Jan 2006, 6:36pm by CaffeineMan
Comments
Here's a non-FO question.
During the Chargers-Broncos game, the announcers (Nantz/Simms maybe? I very well may have been already drunk) were talking about how the Broncos were trying to get Tatum Bell to 1000 yards so they could be the first team with two halfbacks over 1000 yards; 3 other teams had featured two thousand yard backs, but one was a fullback.
Actually, here's a few questions:
1) Is the fact that fullbacks barely touch the ball anymore a function of the fact that fullbacks who can run are moved to tailback, that the increased spending on the salary cap in other places means that less money is available for fullbacks, and as a result, fullbacks who can run are either deemed too expensive or never given an opportunity with such expensive halfbacks ahead of them to carry the ball, or something else?
Yeah - poor little run on sentence.
2) Will fullbacks ever return to prominence in an offensive system?
Just seems like an undervalued group of players.
I've got a question to put out there...
Just watching/reading the Pats/Dolphins game on NFLCast...
Has Belichick decided that he will go for it on 4th and 1 if they're in the opponent's territory, no matter what?
It's crazy...but I like it. I think. Maybe because it's been successful lately lol.
But it certainly does make a game more interesting.
Additionally, is it just me, or has Tom Brady thrown an interception in pretty much every game this year? Somewhat disconcerting.
Re: #1,
I'd say Mack Strong and ...ack...brainf reeze, can't remember name...blocks for the Chargers. Lorenzo Neal I think :)
Mack Strong and Lorenzo Neal are both featured extensively as blocking FB's.
(teams almost never fail to score a touchdown from first-and-goal on the two-yard line)
Pardon me while I laugh at the Raiders.
Brady has not thrown an int in 7 games this year
I find it interesting that the Giants defense allowed the only over 100% offensive performance (Chargers in week 3) and also had the only defensive performance under -100% (Redskins). Did something change in the intervening weeks? Was one game simply an aberration? Both?
Re: #5
Must just be me then. :) Although I saw he had his requisite 4 int game this year...that's always a nice annual present. :) lol
Very interesting. Does this mean the Jags play down to the level of their opponents or that they just have a good enough defense to stay in games and have gotten some clutch/lucky play? I wonder what combination of motivation, talent, and luck is involved when teams like the Jags are so good against tough teams but so underwhelming against bad ones.
MDS writes Both teams have at least one possession 69.2% of the time.
Is an INT for a TD on the first OT possession counted as a one-possession or a two-possession for stats like this?
I haven't seen enough of the Jags to really say, though injuries to the offensive mainstays should be considered as well. I will note that they've had perhaps the most schizophrenic schedule in the league this year - nine games against teams currently 22nd or lower in total DVOA, and six games against teams in the top 5. Relative to that schedule their performance has actually been fairly consistent, with seven victories (and counting) against the real weenies, and a 3-3 split against the powerhouses.
I think if Harrison wins a ring (this year?), you have to consider him the 3rd best WR of all time, behind Rice & Hutson. Brown lost the SB in his only appearance (to TB), and I don't believe Cris Carter ever made it. I don't think Rod Smith merits consideration in the top three, but I think he is prob. considered in the top 10 alltime.
BTW, aren't most (if not all) of the great WR's linked to a great QB (or 2 HOF'ers, in the case of Rice)?
Re #11:
Or aren't all great QBs linked to a great WR or two?
Re: LnGrrrR #2,
What's so crazy about going for it on 4th-and-1 inside the 50? You're increasing your expected points scored and you're not giving up a lot of field position. Especially with the Pat's strong O-line and versatile short-yardage package, it makes perfect sense.
On an unrelated Pats note, it was interesting to see Bellichik (and Lewis) so obviously disregard any interest in the #3 seed. They may as well have announced to the world that they would prefer to play the Jaguars to the Steelers. They even let Flutie attempt the (wonderful, but detrimental to winning) drop-kick.
OK, the drop kick where the Patriots used it was detrimental to winning. But it isn't necessarily a useless tactic. If you had a backup QB who you felt had a reasonably good chance to convert a drop kick, you could build it into your fake FG play. If the defense falls for the fake and someone gets open, pass for the touchdown. If not, go for the drop kick and have a decent chance to get the 3 points.
Fullbacks play essential roles for many running teams. Kyle Johnson in Denver and Mike Sellers in Washington come to mind. Both block and catch short passes at the goal line.
Devin #14,
Yes agreed, it is possible for it to be a useful tactic. However the scenario you mention is shaky. There's a good reason it had been 64 years.
Let's assume for argument's sake that you have a backup QB who can hit the drop-kick 90% of the time (possible in Flutie's case). But note how Flutie dropped WAY back, well beyond normal shotgun range, and how he immediately went for the drop-kick. What I'm driving at is that the rush is a significant factor here. It takes at least a couple seconds for a QB to get a decent read on one or two WR routes. By that time, it's probably too late to attempt the drop-kick without running the risk of getting it blocked.
So basically, the only realistic alternative is for the QB to decide pre-snap whether he's going for 1 or 2. With that significant caveat, yeah, you could see some drop-kicks. The QB could make a simple read and see whether his stud WR is single covered. If he is, throw the fade, otherwise just kick for 1. You have to be very confident in both your QB and your receiver for this to work, but I could see it working if you had a Flutie/Randy Moss sort of combo.
I believe the NFL has changed the rules, but in college I think you can actually attempt a drop-kick from in front of the line of scrimmage. With that in mind, imagine this scenario. A college team is tied, or down three or less, with the ball 8 yards in front of midfield and enough time for one play only. The defense puts three or four guys inside the 5 to defend the hail mary. You pass the ball to your drop-kick guy at the 20, and kick for the win/tie from there. It seems like a good option, better than either the hail mary or the 60-yard field goal.
#6 -
The Redskins game was the first game after their owner, Wellington Mara died, so the Giants were on a hugh emotional rush.
Also, the Chargers game was the first time Eli came back to SD since the draft and also the day when Marty remembered that LDT was a good running back and they should give him the ball a lot.
Another factor to throw in is Antonio Pierce. That was only his third game in a Giants uniform against SD, but he was more familiar in the system by week 8 and the Skins were his former team, so he was probably more familiar with the Skins offense than the NYG defense.
His absense the last two games is the reason why the Giants D sucks again. Thankfully, they have Carolina in Round 1 - who they might be able to fight off before he comes back for round 2.
Re: Dropkicks - does anyone else think that games would be more... um, interesting if there wasn't overtime in the regular season, and you could only use dropkicks or go for two for PAT's?
Re: #16
That was an end-game scenario that Flutie always talked about. Unfortunately, the NFL made it impossible in 1994 or so when the rules were changed so that dropkicks had to be made from behind the LOS.
Re: #13
Heck with the dropkick signalling the Pats were packing it in -- I think pulling Brady after one quarter demonstrated that clearly enough. I do wonder if BB would have left the starters in longer (and maybe activated Dillon) if the Pats had the first-round bye. I wonder if one of the reasons for putting in all the scubs so early (remember -- defensive scrubs came in early in the 2nd quarter) was the lack of the bye and possibility of a short week (which is indeed what happened, as NE/JAX is Saturday) -- give some of the players a bye now in lieu of the bye they've had the past two years.
Re #1: 2) Will fullbacks ever return to prominence in an offensive system?
Guess who has more TDs this year, Denver's Fullback (Kyle Johnson), or Rod Smith? Bzzt, trick question, they both have 6 each.
Re #12: I think that's what makes John Elway even more remarkable. He played the first 13 or 14 years of his career without a single pro bowl WR, and he still built up a HoF caliber resume during that time. And then once he DID get pro bowl WRs (Smith and McCaffrey), he wound up becoming the #1 QB in the NFL in DVOA. At least I seem to recall him being #1 in DVOA in 1998. Which brings me to my next point- Aaron, when are we going to get the 1998 and 1999 stats included on the stat pages?
In the interest of fairness, Elway DID have Shannon Sharpe to throw to for most of the 90s.
From post-game conferences and such, I gather that Belichick wanted Flutie to go down in history, since that very well might have been his last play of his football career. And, you have to admit, that's quite a way to end your football career.
Aaron, if Randy Moss returns to health and regains his old form, I highly doubt that Harrison would be considered better than Moss at the time that Harrison retires. By the time both retire, Moss may well have better numbers than Harrison (depending on how long each plays), and we all know that Moss faces tougher coverages and is simply a more dominant player. And of course it is highly improbable that Moss ever will play with a QB as good as Manning. Sure, some people hate Moss and will argue against him over Harrison for that reason (as they do today), but I don't think many people that do that will seriously believe themselves. I think the better question is where will Moss rank among history's greatest receivers, second to Rice or as the best ever?
RE: Every great WR had a great QB
Steve Largent would be one exception to this, although Dave Krieg does hold the prestigious most career fumbles record.
#22
What???
Maybe a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away Moss will be considered better than Rice. However, here in the real world, there is no chance Moss will be considered better than Rice.
Before seeing this site I had been thinking about the DVOA however I thought it could be done by measuring the point gain/loss each play had relative to the average. This may be a lack of data but that system would make the systems much clearer so the rankings would be how many points above average you were.
Let's not lie to ourselves; Randy Moss can walk on water.
Moss has put up almost exactly half of Rice's numbers in 8 seasons (Rice played for 20. Of course it is is fairly obvious to everyone that Moss' next 8 years will not be as good as his first 8 and I doubt he will last for 12.
Nevertheless, I would rather have Moss at his peak than Rice at his peak if we are talking best WR ever. Rice will have had the better career and is clearly the better teamate, but Moss just had better natural gifts (unless of course you view his attitude as a natural gift).
Oh, by the way, Go Rusher McFumbles!
Re:Bellichik/Dropkicks/Seeds: I was thinking about this earlier too as it seemed the Patriots indeed wanted the 4 seed instead of the 3. Well, I got thinking about something...maybe it's not as much as they wanted to play the Jags, but maybe they think the Jags are not as well equipped to go to Cincy and win as Pittsburgh is. If Pittsburgh wins, and assuming the Patriots take care of their business, the Steelers would have to go to the RCA Dome while the Patriots would get a road game against Denver instead, which they might actually prefer. Maybe that's what the Evil Genius was thinking.
My opinion is that division champs should no longer get seeding preference in the new 4-division setup. If the Pats needed a win to beat out Cincinnati for a home game, you can bet your bottom dollar we would have seen a lot more Tom Brady.
Randy Moss' off year: 60 rec., 1004 yds, 8 tds. He did this in a year with injuries and in an offense that had no idea how to use him, except for one or two jump balls each half, for the first half of the season. Versus the Broncos for the second time this season he made some amazing plays that would have been touchdowns if not amazing defensive plays against him. I definitely think he is better than Alvin Harper (re Michael Irvin)
I'm keeping a watchful eye on Fitzgerald and Boldin in Arizona. Each had 100+ rec. and 1400+ yds for the season. They will both push for top five wr ever if their careers continue at that pace.
Since 2000, Harrison has been better than Moss three seasons and Moss has been better twice based on DPAR and DVOA. 2004 was a split decision.
2000 Moss 2/4 (rank in DPAR/DVOA)
Harrison 9/29
2001 Harrison 1/5
Moss 18/18
2002 Harrison 1/11
Moss 22/47
2003 Moss 2/7
Harrison 9/27
2004 Harrison 12/32
Moss 22/15
2005 Harrison 13/20
Moss 32/42
Moss was never the best wr in the league (in this period, by these metrics) while Harrison was twice. Moss' worst seasons were not as good as Harrison's worst. At this point I'd say Harrison has been a better wr over his career than Moss. Where they will end up is TBD.
I think it would be a better system if, instead of having pre-determined seeding matchups (i.e. the #3 plays the #6 and the #4 plays the #5), if you just went down the seeding chart and let the coaches CHOOSE their opponent, on Monday morning. So Dungy and Shanahan would obviously pick 1st round byes, and then the #3 seed coach would get to pick between the #4, #5, and #6 teams who he wanted to play in round 1. THEN we would definitely have seen a lot more of Brady.
Re 33
That's a damn good idea, I think, can you imagine the rivalries developed as a result of being "picked"? Every 4 5 or 6 would have a gift-wrapped "grudge" against the higher seed that "disrespected" them by picking them; and then all the media and fan hype over the choice if the higher seed were to lose. Very cool idea that will never happen.
The idea that DVOA is handled by an Excel file is frightening. Get an intern to take advantage of Python, Perl, or some other scripting language that should be able to make the generating of DVOA as easy as running a script. There could be some roadblocks to this, but I would suggest you explore it.
It would save more time for writing the columns, if it can be done.
Re: the Flutie dropkick being "detrimental to winning" -- I don't think so. The Pats had just made the score 25-19 with 6:15 left. With that much time left, they're realistically playing for a defensive stop and a single score to win, so there's not much difference between 25-19 (if the kick fails) and 25-20.
Granted, as it turned out the conversion was important since Miami got the FG -- had the conversion missed, NE would have needed two scores with less than 2 minutes left. But I don't think going for the dropkick conversion at that point is a signal that the Pats aren't playing to win.
Re #20
One more reason that I believe Elway is the best evah! I mean, the guy got to the Super Bowl throwing to Ricky Nattiel. Ricky Nattiel!
Re #22
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
RE: #1, I think that halfbacks routinely do the up the middle running that fullbacks used to, so in some respects yes, the good running fullbacks are all now playing half back. (And they are often led by a bad running, but great blocking FB.)
But really, the bigger issue is that offenses no longer believe that it is to their advantage to have a backfield with two running threats in it at the same time. The fact that the defense can key on the single back seems to be mitigated by having the FB spot taken up by a better blocker or an extra TE/WR to spread the field. I think that the Joe Gibbs innovative one back offense in the '80s might have been a big advance in this way of thinking.
I think its a shame, as when I was growing up I loved watching guys like Csonka and Jim Otis run the ball. I'll still tune into a Tampa game just to see if Alstott will get some carries (although I think that technically he is a big halfback, not a fullback.)
Hey, LnGrrrR...got an anti-DVOA statistical note for you that the FO guys will no doubt try to supress: During the Brady era, Pats only win Super Bowls when he has a 4-INT game. So, yes, you should be looking upon that KC game as a gift.
re 38
I could be wrong about this but it is my understanding that Gibbs started using the one back offense to stop LT.
I think Gibbs mentioned this in a book he wrote in the 80's.
I will try and check, its in just about every library in DC.
Cool, I made the lead of the mailbag. Granted, I made it as the anonymous dope being responded to, but still....
MDS's comments on overtime reminded me of the best idea I've ever heard for changing OT. The source of the idea was a high ranking official withing the league, but in the two years since it first came up the concept has gone nowhere. The idea is to simply pick up in overtime where the game left off with the last play of regulation. Thus, if regulation ends tied and team A has the ball 2nd and 10 on their own 30, then overtime begins with team A facing 2nd and 10 on their own 30. The transition from fourth quarter to OT would effectively be the same as the transition from first to second and third to fourth quarters.
I think this is a great idea that adds new (but fair) elements of strategy to late-game management, and it would work for TV purposes too. I kinda wish it would happen but for whatever reason the idea seems to be languishing.
By the way, while I was well corrected on some of the DVOA methodology, the fact remains that DVOA *is* subjective because any analysis that synthesizes multiple elem....ah, forget it.
Re 41:
I've thought of that idea before too. The main problem with it is that it would eliminate the 2:00 drill at the end of games. Teams would just play as usual and a lot of excitement would be lost. At least, I think that's what would happen.
Re #33 Yes, that idea is waay too good for the NFL to use; as is the idea of the winner of Houston/S.F. type game getting the #1 pick. I have to believe that Gruden would have chosen to play the Panthers.
Re #36:
If the dropkick wasn't detrimental to winning, you'd have seen it before yesterday. How disrespected would Rodney Harrison feel if he was a Jaguar?
And, Aaron, it was my question about Cleveland-Pittsburgh in last week's rankings thread. Thanks for the answer.
Maybe this was mentioned in another article. Carolina vs Atlanta, Atlanta defining the term "Mailing it In," trails 44-3 until they score a TD with less than 2 minutes in the game.SO, now trailing 44-9, they decide to go for the 2 Pointer (and they make it). What the blankity-blank ? Is mailing it in and losing 44-11 better than mailing it in and losing 44-10 ?
Does anyone have an explanation ? 11 is a weird number to end a game on.
Just wanted to reduce Carolina's pythagorean win total..
Clearly, with modern placekickers, a dropkick PAT has a lower probability of success than a placekick PAT, with no commensurate reward if successful, so it's only going to happen in a case where one point more or less doesn't matter that much. And in almost all situations, one point more or less matters enough that a coach isn't going to take the lower p(success). But in this case, the lower p(success) had little enough impact on the game that Belichick was willing to take the risk to do something clever, historical, and fun for Flutie in his last game.
So yes, I concede that in the most literal sense of the term it is "detrimental to winning", as it lowers the probability of getting one more point. But I think that having Rusher McFumbles play QB for three quarters is a lot more detrimental to winning than having Flutie try a dropkick PAT.
DGL,
We agree on just about everything, including the "something clever, historical, and fun" part. I'm just not convinced that Belichick cared at all about winning, or that he might have wanted to ensure that he'd play Jacksonville next weekend; you may agree with that, too.
I don't know- Belichick seems to have treated the last two games as an experimental "Let's throw out some plays out there and see how they work" thing- I mean, lining up Bam Childress all over the field? Even at DL? Something's up there.
At this point, I would have a hard time rating Harrison above Alworth. Harrison is probably the best WR of his era and IMO has unfairly been overshadowed by Moss and TO, but I think Alworth was more dominant in his prime.
From 1963-1969 Alworth was first in receptions 3 times, first in yards 3 times, first in receiving TDs 3 times, first in total yards twice, and first in total TDs twice. Perhaps most remarkable is that Alworth never finished lower than third in receiving yards from 1963-1969.
Conversely, Harrison has finished first in receptions twice, first in receiving yards twice, first in receiving TDs once, and has never been in the top 3 in either total yards or total TDs. Of course, if Harrison continues to play at a high level then he will have a strong argument for #3 WR of all time.
Re #50
Good to see someone stick up for Bambi. Alworth is the great forgotten WR. Smooth as satin and cool as gazpacho. Thanks for remembering him.
Re 41 and 42:
I have read a slightly different version of the overtime proposal: pick up in overtime where the game left off with the last play of regulation, BUT allow each team at least one possession. This still gives teams an incentive to win in the 2 minute drill before the end of regulation because otherwise, the other team gets at least one chance to tie or win in overtime with no time pressure.
If the dropkick wasn’t detrimental to winning, you’d have seen it before yesterday.
Honestly, even if it is significantly detrimental I'm surprised we hadn't seen it before yesterday. With all the meaningless games and complete blowouts that have been played in this league in the past fifty-six years, you'd think somebody, somewhere, would have decided to have some fun with the PAT before Doug Flutie.
For that matter, looking back on it I kind of wonder if it would have been a good idea for the Eagles to try a dropkick in that two-game stretch when they had no place kicker.
I wonder what the relationship is between Flutie's dropkick and HC Patriots showing old game footage a few weeks ago.
RE: #39,
Dan Riley, good point! I wonder if next year during the last game of the season, Belichick will say to Brady, "Alright...get in there and throw four ints."
"Right on coach..wait...wait...WHAT?"
"You know...every SB you've won has been in a season where you're thrown four ints in a game. So get out that and get four ints!"
"Uhm....ok..."
:)
Why did Flutie's drop kick hurt the Patriots's chances of winning? Because it wasn't as likely to make it as an XP?
Ah, nevermind. I see. I don't think it was a big deal, though. The one point was not that important at that point in the game, anyway.
>>>I’m just not convinced that Belichick cared at all about winning,
Sorry, messed up the last post:
I think Belichick cared about winning, but it was much lower on the totem pole than a normal game. At this point, you have the playoffs guaranteed. Yes, there's a difference between playing Pittsburgh and Jacksonville in the first round. I think the Patriots beat either team, with them having to come to Foxboro (and Belichick knows Pitt better than Jax)... however, I think Pittsburgh may take more of a physical toll on the Patriots than Jax. I also think that the Patriots, assuming they win their first round game, WANT to go to the RCA Dome in the second round. The Colts, as good as they have been all season, by that time will not have played a meaningful game in over a month. The offense will not have had many game reps, and will show a bit of rust (I don't care if they play against their first defense in practice, it's still not game speed). If you're going to beat the Colts, I think the best chances to do so are in the Divisional round, with them coming off their bye week, rather than in the Championship game. Now, with all that said, I think Sunday had more to do with: 1)resting players so that they are healthy for the playoffs... health of the team is FAR more important than who you play in the first round. Considering how Belichick approaches things, I don't think he'd EVER attempt to throw a game (or try not to win) to avoid one team in favor of another. That let's an attitude of 'ducking an opponent' come in, and I don't think he wants that around his team. 2) Get back up players some time which could be VERY important come playoff time, as we've seen with the Patriots teams. 3) Get a feel on Cassel, and where he is in his progression. Flutie's gone next year, and it's likely he's their #2 backup. It was a good time to see what he could do, and how far along he is.
RE: 58
I don't think they really cared to win, either. I'm just not sold the drop-kick was such a killer for them.
I was the one advocating the last few weeks that the Pats needed to lose to Miami so they could improve their chances.
Re: Al (#40)
I agree that Belichick would never tank a game and in public would never espouse ducking an opponent. But I bet he had a preference and I bet it was Jax, for all the reasons you mention. Everything else you said I agree with and it all lined up in the same direction, so he started the backups and had a little fun with Flutie. I think Belichick would have been fine with a loss and fine with a win.
Drat, #61 should have been Al #59, not #40.
Post new comment