Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

FitzgeraldLar04.jpg

» Scramble for the Ball: The DVOA Schism

Mike and Tom try to figure out what kind of secret sauce Arizona is feeding the media to sit at the top of the power rankings and in the middle of our DVOA rankings.

26 May 2006

FO Mailbag

by the Football Outsiders staff

Sorry for the bit of delay in Four Downs. To make up for it, we thought we'd take a look through some questions in 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 (although we're planning on rewriting that sometime in the next few weeks so it will be easier to understand).

Joe Fafara: I am not as big of an NFL fan as I used to be, so please do not think that I am crazy. But here is my question: Why is Kenny Anderson of the Bengals not a Hall of Fame candidate? I read the article in last year's Pro Football Prospectus about the greatest QB seasons and he had two of the top 10. He took the Bengals to the Super Bowl and as far as I know had a very solid career. Is there something that I am missing? I am not saying for sure that he belongs ... in fact I really do not know the criteria for the Football Hall as I do the Baseball Hall. My point is that you never hear about Anderson when he certainly was one of the top 20-30 quarterbacks of all time.

Mike Tanier: You mention the baseball HOF. I usually start any discussion about the Pro Football Hall of Fame with a warning: Canton is not Cooperstown. The two Halls have different traditions and different tendencies. Recently, Jimmy Smith retired, and many writers speculated that Smith might be a HOFer, citing his statistics. Smith has as much chance of reaching the Hall of Fame as I do. Cooperstown rewards guys who hang around for 20 years and ring some magic bell like 3,000 hits. Canton rewards guys who win championships, or dominate the game for a period of years, or change the way the game is played or perceived. Smith did none of those things.

Anderson is an interesting case. He won a conference title but no Super Bowls, so he falls short in that category. His stats are great but not overwhelming, and he is hampered by playing part of his career in the offense-starved 1970s. He may have been among the best players in the league in 1981 or 1982, but in most seasons he would have been considered the third, fourth, or fifth best quarterback in the league behind Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Dan Fouts, and guys like Ken Stabler and Fran Tarkenton.

Anderson did "change the game" in one way: he was essentially the first West Coast Offense quarterback. To some voters, that's actually a disadvantage; they may hold against him the fact that his great 1974 and 1975 statistical years came in an offense that emphasized short passes. Had he won a playoff game or two in the mid-70's, his reputation might be better. (Cincinnati's problem wasn't Anderson, it was horrible run defense in a run-heavy era.)

In short, don't hold your breath for Anderson, and keep in mind that the bar for Canton is set really high, as Art Monk and others are learning.

Chris Shields: I'm looking for a definition of "passes not caught"when referring to receiving stats. Is it simply uncatchable balls or is it a combination of factors such as lack of effort on the receiver's part?

Aaron Schatz: If you are referring to our stats pages, "passes not caught" is simply passes that are listed with receiver X as the intended receiver, and are not caught. We can't drill down to why the pass was not caught, because that information does not appear in the play-by-play. We are attempting to track this with our game charting project, and while not much of that material made it into the book, we hope to do analysis of it in the next three months.

Rob Z.: I'm a big Chargers fan down here in San Diego. I am an active member of a Chargers fan forum where I am fighting tooth-and-nail to defend our O-line. Some fans have it in their head that our O-Line sucks, that Shane Olivea should be moved from right tackle to guard, that Nick Hardwick is a crappy center, etc. Never mind the fact that both guys started as rookies two years ago and we have maintained being a top offense since then. When are you going to revise your offensive line rankings? I would really like to provide some good stats to help prove that the San Diego O-line is surprisingly effective.

Tim Gerheim (who writes the San Diego chapter for PFP 2006): I don't reckon as the offensive line rankings will be revised until next season when some new offensive line performances take place. There isn't any change in the pipeline for the OL formulas, either Adjusted Line Yards or Adjusted Sack Rate.

So it's a matter of breaking down the numbers to defend the Chargers O-line. Basically, they're a very good run blocking line and an above average pass blocking line. In 2004, with basically the same personnel but much greener (both Hardwick and Olivea were rookies), it was an average run blocking line but an elite pass blocking line. Pretty much all of that decline in pass blocking from 2004 to 2005 is attributable to Roman Oben's injury and Leander Jordan's replacing him. According to our game charting project, Jordan had six blown blocks resulting in sacks, which tie him with a number of other linemen for ninth in the league. Only one other Chargers lineman, guard Kris Dielman, had more than two. And Jordan missed all those blocks in just half a season of play.

In run blocking, the Chargers are one of the best teams running anywhere outside, ranking in the top 10 in three of the four directional Adjusted Line Yards categories other than Mid/Guard. The fourth, left end where Jordan roams, ranked 12th, which is still respectable. They were ninth and first behind right tackle and right end respectively. So to review, the Chargers are above average in both pass blocking and run blocking, they're excellent at running right, and Olivea blew no more than two blocks in 16 games. Blown blocks aren't the be-all-and-end-all of pass blocking, but they're a good indicator, and if we know Olivea was good in terms of blown blocks, it stands to reason that he was good at the other aspects of pass blocking at well. And somebody wants to move him inside to guard?

The Chargers were below average only in runs up the middle, 19th, which might indicate that Hardwick isn't doing such a great job run blocking. But that hardly seems like enough of a reason to disrupt the two-year continuity of the offensive line. After all, the Chargers have hardly been weak in the rushing game. Healthy again in 2005, LaDainian Tomlinson ranked 7th in DPAR last year, and the Chargers had the second-best rush DVOA in the league.

So probably their offensive line could be better. But that can be said about every team except maybe Indianapolis -- #1 in both run and pass blocking -- and after the AFC playoffs it can probably be said about the Colts too. The Chargers hope to get Roman Oben back from his plantar fascitis injury, and they drafted Marcus McNeill in case he doesn't make it back and to be his long-term replacement. If that solves the problem at left tackle, the Chargers should be back to where they were in 2004 in terms of pass blocking. And between the health of Tomlinson and the experience of Hardwick and Olivea, the run blocking should be about the same as last year or a little better. The moral of the story here seems to be, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Kevin Rich: I suppose this question might be for Jim Armstrong who does the 2005 Drive Stats. I was wondering why he did not include a FGs/Drive column. What happens if a defense returns a pass for a TD, does that count as a drive since a change of possession has occurred? What about a special teams touchdown on a return or block?

Jim Armstrong: FGs/Drive are mainly omitted for space reasons. I actually do compute it along with the other drive stats, but too many columns made the page more difficult to read and I didn't think this one was as interesting as the others. Perhaps if we change the layout it will be added in the future.

For the purposes of these stats, I define a "drive" to be a possession with at least one scrimmage play. Thus kickoff return touchdowns are not included at all. A drive also ends with a punt or a turnover, so return yards or points are also not included in these stats. The return is considered a possession but not a drive.

Andy: Could you analyze the whole Browns-to-Broncos defensive line phenomenon? As I understand it, the defensive line for the Browns sucked. Then, they went to Denver and were great. Why did they suck in Cleveland, and what did Shanahan do to them in Denver? Had this ever happened before?

Mike Tanier: First of all, "they" didn't "suck" in Cleveland. More accurately, Courtney Brown and Gerard Warren were very high first-round picks who were severe disappointments in Cleveland. They didn't perform up to the level of high first-round picks in Denver, either, but they weren't being held to that standard. Ekuban and Myers were decent veteran role players who were about as good in Denver as in Cleveland (and, Ekuban's case, Dallas until 2003).

Shanahan looked at these guys and saw low-priced talent at an in-demand position. Plus, Shanny hired defensive line coach Andre Patterson last off-season, and Patterson wanted his boys. The Cleveland four joined Trevor Pryce in Denver, adding another pass-rush threat. Players like Demetrian Veal added depth, so the Broncos always cycled rested linemen onto the field. The biggest difference for Warren and Brown wasn't about schemes. It was about a fresh start and realistic expectations.

As for whether or not a failed unit from one team has ever moved almost all of its players to another team and then succeeded, no, not that I can remember.

Mark Papadopoulos: In Eddie Epstein's excellent book Dominance, he states that the 1981 Colts (who were 2-14) were statistically the worst team of all time. He uses, as I am sure you know, a formula of team total yards and points and strength of schedule and then measures how many standard deviations a team is away from the average. In essence, he measures how good or bad teams were for their era. In any event, looking at your DVOA analysis, which is different but also statistically-based, last year's 49ers were truly dreadful. Is it possible that the 2005 49ers were the worst team in NFL history?

Aaron Schatz: The 49ers are the worst team in the history of the DVOA stat, which goes back nine years, but based on Epstein's measurements, they are not the worst team. Epstein's measure is called API, or Adjusted Power Index, and he adds together the number of standard deviations a team was from the league average in points, yards, points allowed, and yards allowed, then adjusts based on strength of schedule.

The 2005 49ers have an API of -7.54 which would put them fourth on a list of Epstein's worst teams, ahead of the 1970 Patriots, 1986 Bucs, and 1981 Colts. They blow away every other team from the past six years -- the second-lowest team from 2000-2004 by Epstein's measure were the 2002 Lions, at -6.04. Incidentally, the 2005 Texans have an API of -5.86, so they aren't even close to being on Epstein's worst list.

Here are the worst teams since 2000 by Epstein's API and by DVOA. These DVOA ratings will be different from the others on the site, because they are the new upgraded DVOA v5.0 which is making its first appearance in PFP 2006:

10 Worst Teams, 2000-2005 by API 10 Worst Teams, 2000-2005 by DVOA
Year Team API Year Team DVOA
2005 SF -7.54 2005 SF -56.5%
2002 DET -6.07 2004 SF -46.0%
2000 CLE -5.91 2000 ARI -44.2%
2005 HOU -5.85 2000 CLE -43.8%
2001 CAR -5.61 2003 ARI -42.9%
2003 ATL -5.34 2002 ARI -41.9%
2002 ARI -5.21 2000 CIN -41.7%
2003 ARI -5.11 2002 HOU -39.8%
2003 HOU -4.83 2002 DET -35.1%
2002 HOU -4.79 2005 HOU -34.8%

(The 2004 49ers are 11th in worst API, -4.70.)

Posted by: admin on 26 May 2006

78 comments, Last at 12 Jun 2006, 8:57am by Scott de B.

Comments

1
by Josh (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 2:39pm

First!

2
by John (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 2:55pm

Ok, I'll bite, how is version 5.0 new and improved?

3
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 2:59pm

Awesome... football season is right around the corner.

Did the PFP2006 date get pushed back from next month into August?

How many other people here are interested in football, and not primarily fantasy football? I think you guys do a good job of appealing to both... I really didn't pay attention to the fantasy projections at all.

4
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:08pm

I look forward to a new formula for evaluating offensive line play in the passing a game; it is my experience, which I grant is far less than all-encompassing, adjusted sack totals just don't provide consistent insight as to whether an offensive line is pass blocking well. The Vikings' offensive lines in 2003 and 2004 pass blocked pretty well, and the Vikings offensive production was consistent with a team that was pass blocking pretty well. The adjusted sack totals were bottom tier, however, and in my observation this was due to two factors.

One was that the Culpepper/Moss Vikings were definitely a vertical passing team, with a higher than normal average of long passes which take more time to develop, and, two, Culpepper holds on to the ball forever, or at least he did in the Vikings' offense of those years. Numerous times I saw Culpepper take a sack after holding on to the ball in excess of five seconds, even from the shotgun formation. It'll be interesting to see in what way qb behavior or offensive style is accounted for in evaluating pass protection by an offensive line, and whether offensive line performance can be seperated from blitz package performance by running backs.

Statistical evaluation of football is hard, and I appreciate the efforts made by FO, so this shouldn't be taken as harsh criticism..

5
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:18pm

Will DVOA v5 tell us which is the worst playoff team ever, the '98 Cardinals or the '04 Rams?

6
by admin :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:22pm

Really quick ... the goal of PFP 2006 was to get out around July 15, for some reason that was listed as July 1 on Amazon for a long time and now it is listed as August 1. The goal is still July 15, roughly two weeks earlier than last year.

Improvements on DVOA v5.0, the short list: baseline of twice as many years, more special teams tweaks, separation of muffs vs. fumbles on returns, consideration of length of interceptions, less penalty for long interceptions on third down, tweaking value of turnovers, heavy research on penalties, more intricate measure of time remaining in fourth quarter, and added references to mid-80's postpunk bands from Ohio.

We ran a whole essay on the 1998 Cardinals in last year's book and they actually drop lower in the 1998 rankings with the new DVOA.

7
by Sergio (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:26pm

I'm sad to hear that little data from the game charting project made it into the book. As a game charter, and as a football fan, I can say that information can be extremely valuable when it comes time to evaluate players.

Oh well... I hope this doesn't mean the project will become underestimated...

8
by admin :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:55pm

Sergio, go back and read that again. I didn't say little of the game charting information made it into the book. I said little of the "reason for incomplete" game charting information made it into the book. A TON of game charting information is in the book -- including stats for every defensive back, YAC and pass breakdowns for every receiver and quarterback, breakdowns of how often every team blitzed and ran different formations, and a huge study on when blitzing is effective -- just not info from that category.

9
by M (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 3:59pm

Pere Ubu, Aaron?

10
by AlexDL (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 4:41pm

Aaron, have you considered releasing a CD of the raw data that you have from the game charts along with PFP 2006?
Thanks

11
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 5:45pm

Mmm...Pere Ubu. Fall asleep listening to Worlds in Collision and then tell me you didn't have strange, strange dreams. Although I'm more fond of the Red Elvises myself.

Right, football - I think a big part of the ex-Browns linemen playing better has to do with Butch Davis not being so intricately involved now.

I've also got my questions regarding the Chargers O-line. I think Philip Rivers will be fine back there, but frankly I'm rather surprised a back like Ladainian Tomlinson doesn't average a higher ypc. I haven't looked at the stats in depth, though, so I could be mistaken.

12
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 5:51pm

One was that the Culpepper/Moss Vikings were definitely a vertical passing team, with a higher than normal average of long passes which take more time to develop

If this is true, wouldn't you expect a positive correlation between a team's yards/completion and sack rate?

13
by Countertorque (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 5:56pm

Would adjusted sacks be better if it were measured as average seconds per pass play without a sack? You take the average length of time the QB has the ball on every pass play before he either throws it, or is is sacked.

It may not give full credit to o-lines on plays where the QB throws the ball long before he would have been sacked, but it should give better credit to o-lines that do well with QB's who like to hold the ball too long.

I guess there's no easy way to get the time that the pass was thrown. You could use the length of the play from the play by play data. But, that's not so accurate for plays with lots of YAC.

14
by Bright Blue Shorts (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 6:20pm

Interesting that the 2005 49ers are listed as 4th worst team of all-time (under API) and worst of all-time under DPAR; yet managed to finish 4-12 and draft 6th/7th (results of a coin toss with Oakland).

BBS :)

15
by Vince (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 6:36pm

If this is true, wouldn’t you expect a positive correlation between a team’s yards/completion and sack rate?

In the past, I have in fact found a positive (albeit weak) correlation between the two, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2.

16
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 6:41pm

Pat, long passes by definition have a lower rate of completion, so some of the "sack risk" is not accurately reflected in yards per completion, even ignoring yards after catch issues. Maybe the correct number to look at is yards per attempt.

Actually, countertorque, if one is going to the trouble of actually timing quarterback releases, or non-releases, the thing to do would be to simply discount, or adjust for, sacks which occurred after some designated number of seconds which the quarterback held the ball. Similarly, one could adjust for those occasions in which a qb threw a ball away, or took off running, after being pressured in less than some designated number of seconds, although this is more subjective. I would think that this is how offensive linemen are actually graded out by teams.

There is just too much variability in play calling, and more importantly, in qb behavior, which adjusted sack total does not account for, and which limits the usefulness of the statistic, in terms of measuring the true relative performance of offensive lines. Like I said, what alerted me to the issue was watching the '03 and '04 Vikings, who pass blocked well, had offensive production consistent with a team that pass blocked well, yet ranked near the bottom, in terms of sack and adjusted sack numbers.

17
by johonny (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 7:25pm

In short, don’t hold your breath for Anderson, and keep in mind that the bar for Canton is set really high, as Art Monk and others are learning.

I would argue from your statements that there is no bar for the NFL hall of fame. Basically you state things like "was he a winner", "did it feel like he was a difference maker" are more important than statistical measures of the players worth. That does seem like a high bar to me. It's a measure based more on gut and feeling than an actually measure of the player. Hopefully the more statistical work that is done for the NFL, the better the evaluation of player's careers will be.

18
by Bill (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 8:03pm

Pere Ubu is mid-seventies, man. Well, Terminal Tower is mid-seventies at least.

Think more post-post-modern.

19
by jim's apple pie (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 10:22pm

Re: the Chargers O-line

I think that Hardwick was almost assuredly the weak link last year. I thought he had a pretty impressive rookie campaign, so hopefully he can bounce back and improve on a sophomore slump.

The Chargers did seem to have a harder time running up the middle last year. Does that put all of the blame on Hardwick? Probably not. But I wish I had some of the game tapes to see who was blowing their blocks in the middle. Specifically, the second half of the first Denver game and the entire Philly game. The Philly game was ridiculous; that was the one where LT was getting tackled 2 yards behind the line of scrimmage every run. He ended up with something like 17 carries for 7 yards. I would imagine that Hardwick was missing a great deal of blocks that game.

I like the McNeil pick. I think that if he didn't have that spine condition, he's easily a mid first rounder and the second best OT prospect. This guy was great both in run blocking and pass blocking at Auburn. I think that Oben is going to have trouble coming back from his foot injury and McNeil will be the starter fairly early on in the season.

20
by Michael (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 11:27pm

that dvoa stuff is way overrated im tired of the dvoa..

21
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 11:53pm

Pat, long passes by definition have a lower rate of completion, so some of the “sack risk� is not accurately reflected in yards per completion, even ignoring yards after catch issues. Maybe the correct number to look at is yards per attempt.

Wrong way around. Yards per attempt would be pulled down by the lower rate of completion. Yards per completion is what you want. That is, you attempt 10 throws, only make 4, but they go 80 yards total - yards per attempt is 8, yards per completion is 20. I did, in fact, think of that. :)

22
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 05/26/2006 - 11:59pm

In the past, I have in fact found a positive (albeit weak) correlation between the two, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2.

Well, you'd expect it to be weak - if it was strong, then all offensive lines would be equivalent, and it's just the offensive style that determines the number of sacks, which we know isn't true.

If there is a positive correlation, that's way cool. Naively you might expect it to be negative - that is, QBs which are constantly attempting to avoid being sacked will check down to short passes more often. But this kinda implies that the dominant effect is the amount of time needed for the play, which you can then correct for, and get an "offensive style adjusted sack rate".

23
by Brad (not verified) :: Sat, 05/27/2006 - 12:22am

Wow! Do I ever feel sorry for all the Texans and Cardinals fans out there. I knew both teams were bad, but to have 3 of the top ten worst teams on either list is a sorry state of affairs. As a Colts fan since the mid-1980s, I feel your pain.

24
by Podge (not verified) :: Sat, 05/27/2006 - 6:20am

Devo right Aaron? Although they seem to have been in their prime in the late 70s rather than mid 80s, they were active then. Also their name sounds vaguely like DVOA, which may be the reference?

What do I win?

25
by Kaveman (not verified) :: Sat, 05/27/2006 - 10:47am

#19: I remember the San Diego-Philly game, and what I remember is that the Eagles sold out against the run completely, and San Diego didn't adjust their play-calling. Tomlinson's stats in that game can be attributed to coaching, I'm pretty sure, and not to the O-line.

26
by Kaveman (not verified) :: Sat, 05/27/2006 - 10:51am

#21: That is, you attempt 10 throws, only make 4, but they go 80 yards total - yards per attempt is 8, yards per completion is 20.

This "completed-yards-per-attempt" seems like a not very useful stat. It doesn't really tell you if the team was passing deep a lot, nor does it tell you if the team got most of its yards on deep completions; in fact, I'm not sure what it does tell you.

Using Pat's example, if you make 10 attempts and complete 4 for 80 yards, any of the following possibilities can hold:
- Each pass was thrown 20 yards down the field.
- The 6 incomplete passes were each thrown 30 yards down the field.
- One throw was caught 5 yards past the line of scrimmage and taken 63 yards by a receiver, while the three other completed throws were for 4 yards each.
- Etc.

Median yards per attempt would say more. But, it seems to me like the stat would be more useful if it counted where the ball was thrown, per attempt, rather than just consider completed yards.

27
by SJM (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 10:58am

Kaveman,

Re: 26

Mean yards per attempt actually correlates with winning, although that isn't relevant here.

Median yards per attempt might say more for sacks, but I'd like to see the mode of yards per attempt, since that definitely gets at how the offense is constructed (or at least it might do so more than mean yards per completion or median of yards per attempt or completion).

28
by James C (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 12:03pm

Will I be able to get hold of this PFP 06 in the UK?

If so, does anyone know how?

29
by Zac (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 2:16pm

The easiest way, James, is online at amazon.com. They'll ship anywhere. In fact, I ordered some stuff from amazon.co.uk one time (wasn't available on the .com) and had it delivered to the US. Otherwise, I seem to recall someone saying (about the Prospectus 2005) that you could give any local bookstore the ISBN number (0761142177) and they should be able to order it for you.

30
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 3:57pm

What was the API of the 2005 Texans? I see two different numbers there.

31
by Barnas (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 6:03pm

Amazon.co.uk has the PFP 2006, so no worries for getting it in the UK.

Getting myself NFL Head Coach, however... that could be a challenge.

32
by James C (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 6:07pm

Cheers Zak. I'll check it out.

33
by Zac (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 7:44pm

Sid, the 2005 Texans have an API of -5.85 (4th place on the left list). They have a DVOA of -34.8% (10th on the right list).

34
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 9:43pm

James C,

If you order from Amazon, order now. Last year Amazon took nearly 3 weeks to get my copy of PFP '05 across the Atlantic. I can only assume they sent it by canoe.

Regarding the Chargers O-line, how much of the decline is coaching based? Hudson Houck was O-line coach in '04, but moved to Miami in '05. Miami, who had one of the worst O-lines in the league in '04 were signifcantly improved last year, without any major personnel upgrades.

Miami 2004: ALY 32nd, ASR 26th
Miami 2005: ALY 11th, ASR 5th.

These are big improvements.

Houck is considered one of the best O-line coaches in the league and his absence in San Deigo last year seems significant. Do those of you with a better grasp of Offensive line play than me (most of you), agree?

35
by Michael (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 10:47pm

How can the niners be the worst they had 4 wins with the weakest offensive line. Alex smith had no time to throw the ball and he had no recivers to throw it too. mike nolan had nothing to work with and he did a pretty good job winning 4 wins. they were also competitve in alot of other games too. so that is ridiculous to say they were the worst ever thats why i say that dvoa stuff is overrated.

36
by Andrew (not verified) :: Sun, 05/28/2006 - 11:46pm

Matthew Furtek:

Like you, I'm mostly interested in Football, and not Fantasy Football. I don't think we are alone.

Oh, by the way. Dallas still sucks.

37
by Bill (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 1:44am

so that is ridiculous to say they were the worst ever thats why i say that dvoa stuff is overrated.

Your jig is clearly up, Schatz. Take this thing down before Michael reveals more of the truth.

38
by Stevie (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 3:10am

Michael you have been my favourite poster at FO for many months now

39
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 3:19am

Remember, don't take this stuff too seriously.

DVOA is a better flawed system....

40
by Tim R (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 5:34am

Re: 35
I really don't think the niners had the worst offensive line in the league. I mean it was bad but it wasnt as bad as some, Gore did alright behind it. Look at the Texans pass blocking but at least they could sort of run block. But cleasrly the worst line was Arizona, I mean their runners got hit in the backfield more often than not and their pass blocking was pretty spectactularly bad as well and well for that matter the Jets line was pretty god damn awful too.

41
by Tim R (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 5:55am

Sorry for the double post but while im rambling about how bad the niners are its worth remembering who they beat. The Rams twice, the Bucs and the Texans.

The first game against the Rams was a Mike Martz sspecial with atrocious time management and red zone play calling. The Bucs was quite impressive it was Simms' first start and Cadillac wsa beat up. They managed to beat the Rams again without Bulger and under Joe Vitt who seemed almost as insane as Martz. In what could be an improved NFC West i can't really see them improving on 4 wins.

42
by Levente, Hungary (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 6:16am

Is there any other way to get it apart from ordering from Amazon? The book costs $12.89 and they charge $13.47 for shipping to Hungary. It sounds a tad expensive.

43
by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 1:23pm

"Is there any other way to get it apart from ordering from Amazon? The book costs $12.89 and they charge $13.47 for shipping to Hungary. It sounds a tad expensive."

Levente, I think you're basically up a river. The option most likely to work would be to have your local book store order it for you. They'll still likely charge you for shipping but it could be quite a bit less. Of course you won't be able to track its progress and you'll have to go back to the store ad pick it up, but you won't pay more for the shipping than the book.

Foreign based readers could also take this opportunity to flood the outsiders with requests to offer PFP 2007 as an e-book. The technology to secure PDFs to prevent unauthorized copying is quite good and you definitely would not have to pay shipping on that. Of course while the authors are likely quite progressive it's no guarantee that their publisher is, and they will have a lot to say about distribution.

44
by Michael (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 5:48pm

re:41 almsot every media source on the computer, tv,and radio has said the niners will improve to 6 or 7 wins. norv turner and mike nolan will bring the 49ers back to greatness!!!!

45
by Michael (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 6:41pm

heres an article from foxsports.com 1. Alex Smith had a really bad season last year.
And he knows it.
The 49ers' quarterback told us this week, "It was the first time in my life I ever struggled playing football. The game just moved so fast."
A year after being the first overall pick in the 2005 NFL Draft, things are finally starting to slow down and look up for Smith.
In talking to Smith for 20 minutes this week, he sounded refreshed, very enthused about the 2006 season, very positive about the direction of the Niners under Mike Nolan and very eager to learn from his neophyte campaign.
The former Utah star admitted he pressed last year after being the No. 1 overall pick. Smith pressed trying to overcompensate for San Francisco's injuries to an already talent-poor roster. And when he couldn't punch the darn ball in the end zone, it affected him. Smith admitted frustration at not throwing a touchdown pass until Week 17 against the Texans.
The stats were bad last year. Watching the games Smith played was actually worse.
But Smith is optimistic about the future. Smith said, "The 49ers didn't make me the No. 1 overall pick just for my rookie year. They trusted me for the future of this franchise, and I am ready. Even when we struggled, my confidence in myself, our coaches and my teammates never waned."
It was a late Christmas present when the 49ers hired Norv Turner to be their new offensive coordinator. As Smith said, "How could you not appreciate what Coach Turner did with Troy Aikman?"
Smith is thrilled that the team drafted him a big weapon in Vernon Davis and signed Antonio Bryant. And what really pleased the quarterback was bringing in Larry Allen to sure up the offensive line.
But perhaps there was no bigger move for Smith than San Francisco trading for Trent Dilfer.
"Last year I really didn't have a veteran to talk to. Ken (Dorsey) is still relatively young, and Tim Rattay was traded. Trent's won a Super Bowl. Trent's been a high draft pick. He will be a great sounding board for me."
There's no question that Smith and the 49ers have a long way to go. But one thing you never have to wonder about with Smith is his dedication to making 2005 a distant memory.

46
by Bill (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 8:04pm

heres an article from foxsports.com

I wouldn't trust foxsports.com.

Those guys don't know what they're talking about.

47
by masocc (not verified) :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 8:15pm

Re #42 -- For $24.88 I'll have my friend's energetic 2 year old copy each page onto a postcard, and mail them to you every other day. 10 pages per postcard. I could even probably dig up some football related postcards for you. Ever see that Lucy placeholding for Charlie Brown bit?

48
by admin :: Mon, 05/29/2006 - 11:39pm

Golly, I sure hope $13.50 isn't too much to pay for 500 pages of our writing. This is what I do to support my family, after all. And yes, the essay on the new formula is entitled Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are DVOA!

Oh, and sorry if I sounded mean to Sergio, he was an awesome game charter, he did pretty much every Dolphins game and provided detailed descriptions of almost every play.

49
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 12:25am

He's not saying it's $13.50 - he's saying it's $26.00 - $13 for the book and another $13 for the shipping.

Heck, it'd be a few bucks cheaper for someone in the US to buy two of them (thus getting free shipping through Amazon) and then shipping the other to Hungary ($11). Unless it's more than 11 lbs... okay, at 500 pages... maybe it is. :)

50
by Levente, Hungary (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 3:58am

Aaron,

I am absolutely willing to pay that much for YOUR work. Paying the same amount for shipping is another issue.
Anyway, I will treat it as a vert early Christmas present for myself :-)

51
by Ilanin (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 7:51am

Hmm. 50, Amazon.de has PFP2006 listed in it's English-language section, and I'd hope that shipping from Germany is substantially cheaper than shipping from the United States, though it may not be, my German is lousy so I didn't investigate very far.

52
by admin :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 11:36am

Wow, sorry I missed that part. $13 shipping? What, are they sending it by U-boat?

53
by Levente, Hungary (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 1:45pm

Ilanin,

Thanks for the idea. The price of the book itself is 16.5 EUR (about 20 USD) at their German site ...

OK, let's change subject.

54
by Ben (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 3:30pm

Michael thinks that DVOA is way overrated and a better way to determine success is... level of optimism?
All the teams that drafted players who said "I think I'm not very good" are kicking themselves.

55
by Ilanin (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 5:44pm

I believe Michael was saying:

DVOA is clearly ranked too high because Troy Aikman had a really bad rookie year. Being wildly optimistic about the prospects of your top-pick QB is way better than this. 49ers will make the playoffs this year i mean seattle has lost hutchinson and juryvicious arizona is way overrated and SL r still in decline.

56
by Gavin (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 7:32pm

It seems that every time there's a post thread the random 49er fans come on and discuss their return to glory in the coming season. Probably the best comedy of the offseason so far for me. The logic is so solid... because Seattle lost a guard and SL r still in decline the Niners have to make it. Alex Smith is optimistic!

57
by Michael (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 9:26pm

re:55 i never said they would make the playoffs i said they would win 6 games got that whatever your name is.

you guys here on the thread are like sharks you taste blood and you attack right away.

58
by Jimi (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 10:40pm

#57
We don't deal in blood. We deal in numbers. So far all we have heard from you are grand speculations and monstrous overconfidence in a team that has been the league's worst two years in a row and has made approximately zero "improve right now" signings. The Niners are gonna be out of the race this year, just like my Packers. Deal with it.

In your last response to me, you compared Smith's numbers to Terry Bradshaw's rookie season. Sure, his rating is lower, but his TD-INT ratio, yards per game, and yards per attempt in 1970 are all higher than Smith in 2005. And FYI, Bradshaw is another QB who simply found ways to win without needing to put up great numbers. Bradshaw won 38% of his games in '70, Smith managed to win a whopping 25%.

Face it: there are no indications that Smith is going to be as good as Bradshaw, Aikman, or even Joey Harrington. There are no indications that the Niners are going to win more than four games this year.

And if you don't like what DVOA (which is what this site is all about BTW) has to say, then by all means, take your pie-in-the-sky philosophy over to the geniuses at CBS Sportsline or NFL.com. Go ahead, base your opinions on the factless guesstimations of Vic Carucci or whatever clowns they have working at CBS.

59
by Sid (not verified) :: Tue, 05/30/2006 - 11:05pm

RE: 33

The point is, right before that graph is says -5.86.

60
by Albert (not verified) :: Wed, 05/31/2006 - 9:12am

Will Allen Said:
"There is just too much variability in play calling, and more importantly, in qb behavior, which adjusted sack total does not account for, and which limits the usefulness of the statistic, in terms of measuring the true relative performance of offensive lines."

Variability in QB behavior? Somebody tell that to Mike Holmgren.

61
by michael (not verified) :: Wed, 05/31/2006 - 11:08pm

whats up with this jimi guy i dont know you i dont want to know you i think you werent hugged enough as a kid.

62
by BLA_BLA (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 12:06am

Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!Vikings!!!

63
by BLA_BLA (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 12:08am

Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!Go to hell Brett Farve!!!

64
by Michael (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 12:09am

I kick ASS!I I kick ASS

65
by NextCoast Winos (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 3:01am

Cut it out, please

66
by protagoras (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 6:43pm

Okay, so I'm a homer. But while the 49ers _average_ performance was historically bad, I feel duty-bound to point out that they weren't even the worst team last year, having won an incredible four times. I don't think you can dismiss that as just variance. Also I want to defend poor Alex Smith. He didn't play well, but he was nowhere near as bad as his horrific stats. His performance looked much worse than it was, with receivers dropping balls and pulling up on routes right and left. He wasn't really the big problem with that offense. I personally wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years he is one of the better QBs in the league.

67
by mike (not verified) :: Thu, 06/01/2006 - 10:18pm

re:66 I totally agree with you ive been saying this all along finally i have a supporter.

68
by Ilanin (not verified) :: Fri, 06/02/2006 - 9:29am

66 - no, the 49ers were the worst team last year, and not just last year but at any point in the last eight years, so DVOA says. API has them as the worst team for 19 years. They outperformed their estimated wins (1.8) by two games and a bit.

Also, yes, I can dismiss the wins as variance, given that they "lead" the league in that particular statistic, with a massive 39.3%, a full 6.1% clear of next-placed Buffalo.

As for Alex Smith, sure, he can turn things around. We're yet to see any indication that he's going to do so, though.

69
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 06/02/2006 - 10:16am

having won an incredible four times. I don’t think you can dismiss that as just variance.

Strength of schedule.

While the 49ers had a normal schedule on average, it was extremely lopsided - they had a bunch of weak teams, and a bunch of strong teams.

That leads to more wins than you would normally expect.

70
by mike (not verified) :: Fri, 06/02/2006 - 5:06pm

This Pat guy always has a problem with the niners i think hes mad because we have 5 super bowls and his team probley sucks like shit.

71
by Pat on the Back (not verified) :: Fri, 06/02/2006 - 5:24pm

In defense of my kindred namesake, he is an Eagles fan. He also knows how to punctuate and make cogent points. The Niners were brutally bad last year. He is upset because of this; I'm pretty sure he has made peace with each one of those 5 championships and no longer is mad about them.

72
by Kibbles (not verified) :: Sat, 06/03/2006 - 12:42am

The 49ers are the worst team in the history of the DVOA stat, which goes back nine years

Ooh, ooh, does this mean we'll finally get the DVOA numbers prior to 2000?!

*shivers with anticipation and glee*

73
by Catfish (not verified) :: Sat, 06/03/2006 - 4:21pm
74
by protagoras (not verified) :: Sat, 06/03/2006 - 7:18pm

The point I was making was that it seems unlikely that they would more than double their estimated wins randomly. The Niners could be spectacularly bad--hence their terrible DVOA--but unlike they other bad teams they didn't pack it in. That's coaching, I think. And I think that if we were to replay the season again and again, on average they would outperform those 1.8 "expected" wins (which I'm not sure would be the case for the Texans or Jets). And wins are what matters. DVOA--average performance--is interesting, but primarily as a predictor of wins.

75
by Catfish (not verified) :: Sat, 06/03/2006 - 8:50pm

Re: 74

I have to disagree. The 49ers beat the Rams (#29 in DVOA) twice by a total of 7 points and Houston (#31) by 3 in the week 17 suck bowl. Their one semi-impressive win was by 5 over the Bucs. By comparison, they had 2 close losses (31-34 to Dallas, ow 25-27 to Seattle) and a lot of horrendously bad ones (3-42 to Philly, 3-28 to Indy, 17-52 to Washington, 3-41 to Seattle). Any of their 4 wins could easily have been losses, and maybe they could have won either or both of those two close losses (though I think their performance against Seattle was about as good as they could have done), but they were pretty lucky to get 4 wins with the way they played. If this season is played over again, my guess is that they end up a lot closer to their 1.8 estimated wins. Maybe you're right and they didn't "pack it in" because of good coaching, but there is no way we can know if that's true.

76
by Kibbles (not verified) :: Mon, 06/05/2006 - 8:12pm

Re #73: Thanks, but I didn't mean the team numbers... I meant the WR/QB/RB numbers.

Also, unless it was a typo, Aaron said we have *NINE* seasons worth of DVOA. That's 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998... and 1997 (which hasn't been unveiled yet). :)

77
by skippyx (not verified) :: Sun, 06/11/2006 - 11:48am

They swept a 6-10 team. They beat a "green as the grass" Chris Simms and they won the last 2 games when other teams were trying more for evaluation and improving draft status.

The last 2 wins prove that the talent was awful and the coaching/management was worse. You play 3rd stringers and don't go crazy gameplanning to end up drafting 2nd instead of 7th.

They also traded away their only NFL calibur QB for a bag of footballs. Smith may prove this statement wrong but as mentioned previously; we have no proof of that whatsoever.

78
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Mon, 06/12/2006 - 8:57am

How can the niners be the worst they had 4 wins with the weakest offensive line. Alex smith had no time to throw the ball and he had no recivers to throw it too. mike nolan had nothing to work with

Having a weak offensive line, no time to throw the ball, and no one to throw to is a good start to being the worst.