Week 2 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

How 'bout them Cowboys? More importantly, how 'bout them Texans?

Actually, in the long run, those Cowboys and Texans may not be quite as wonderful as you think, but more on that in a bit.

Note as of Wednesday night: Due to an error, the original numbers published on Tuesday for Denver, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Washington were incorrect. They are now fixed. This error only effected team ratings, not individual numbers.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through two weeks of 2007, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here [1].) OFFENSE and DEFENSE VOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season.

There are no opponent adjustments in VOA until the fourth week of the season, which is why it is VOA right now rather than DVOA. Instead, we use DAVE, which combines the preseason projection with the results of early games to give us a better prediction of how each team will rank at the end of the year. In this week's DAVE ratings, the preseason projection counts for 75 percent, and the current VOA counts for 25 percent. (Last week, the ratio was 90/10.)

Offense [2], defense [3], and special teams [4] pages are updated through Week 2. We also have updated all the individual stats pages for the first time: quarterbacks [5], running backs [6], wide receivers [7], and tight ends [8]. Loser League stats [9] are updated, with some Week 1 mistakes now fixed. Here is the schedule for updating our other numbers:

2007 will be added to the DVOA Premium Database by Thursday night.
Adjusted Line Yards and Adjusted Sack Rate will be updated beginning after Week 3.
Defense vs. Types of Receivers will be updated beginning after Week 4.
The Playoff Odds Report will debut for 2007 after Week 4.

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

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

	TEAM	TOTAL DVOA	LAST WEEK	DAVE	RANK	NON-ADJ TOT VOA	W-L	OFFENSE DVOA	OFF. RANK	DEFENSE DVOA	DEF. RANK	S.T. DVOA	S.T. RANK
1	NE	88.3%	2	47.2%	1	88.4%	2-0	57.6%	1	-28.7%	3	2.0%	14
2	PIT	82.3%	1	28.2%	2	84.9%	2-0	28.6%	4	-50.0%	1	3.6%	10
3	DAL	48.5%	5	4.8%	11	52.7%	2-0	50.2%	2	7.0%	20	5.3%	7
4	HOU	46.0%	8	-1.5%	16	44.2%	2-0	15.2%	7	-19.8%	5	11.0%	4
5	IND	41.4%	3	15.6%	6	45.2%	2-0	35.5%	3	-10.2%	11	-4.3%	23
6	DEN	35.5%	10	9.0%	9	33.4%	2-0	15.6%	6	-39.2%	2	-19.2%	30
7	BAL	26.8%	20	15.7%	5	19.5%	1-1	-15.6%	23	-26.4%	4	16.0%	1
8	DET	25.3%	6	-0.8%	15	21.7%	2-0	10.8%	11	-13.0%	10	1.5%	15
9	GB	23.5%	16	10.1%	8	19.1%	2-0	3.0%	16	-14.0%	9	6.4%	6
10	MIN	16.6%	4	-2.6%	19	13.3%	1-1	-6.5%	19	-18.2%	7	4.9%	8
11	ARI	16.2%	14	-9.9%	23	20.9%	1-1	13.0%	9	-5.2%	15	-2.0%	20
12	TB	13.0%	24	11.1%	7	7.8%	1-1	5.1%	15	-5.3%	14	2.6%	13
13	WAS	8.2%	13	6.9%	10	18.1%	2-0	6.5%	13	-1.4%	17	0.3%	18
14	SEA	7.2%	7	1.8%	13	9.1%	1-1	11.1%	10	8.1%	22	4.3%	9
15	CIN	4.1%	15	-1.6%	17	5.8%	1-1	23.2%	5	-2.1%	16	-21.2%	31
16	JAC	-1.3%	21	18.2%	3	0.6%	1-1	2.3%	17	4.3%	19	0.8%	17
	TEAM	TOTAL DVOA	LAST WEEK	DAVE	RANK	NON-ADJ TOT VOA	W-L	OFFENSE DVOA	OFF. RANK	DEFENSE DVOA	DEF. RANK	S.T. DVOA	S.T. RANK
17	STL	-2.2%	22	-19.2%	29	-1.6%	0-2	-4.4%	18	-0.9%	18	1.4%	16
18	CHI	-5.0%	25	1.6%	14	-4.3%	1-1	-36.9%	32	-18.9%	6	13.0%	3
19	PHI	-6.2%	17	18.0%	4	-2.3%	0-2	-8.1%	21	-9.7%	12	-7.8%	24
20	TEN	-8.1%	12	-7.0%	21	-9.7%	1-1	6.9%	12	12.0%	26	-3.0%	22
21	SF	-14.1%	19	-4.7%	20	-13.6%	2-0	-28.0%	29	-6.2%	13	7.7%	5
22	CAR	-15.5%	11	3.9%	12	-10.2%	1-1	6.4%	14	7.2%	21	-14.7%	29
23	MIA	-21.9%	18	-16.2%	28	-32.0%	0-2	-13.4%	22	11.3%	25	2.8%	12
24	SD	-35.4%	9	-2.2%	18	-40.2%	1-1	-26.2%	28	8.8%	23	-0.4%	19
25	CLE	-36.5%	31	-13.4%	24	-34.6%	1-1	-7.2%	20	32.1%	29	2.9%	11
26	ATL	-38.6%	29	-9.5%	22	-38.8%	0-2	-20.0%	24	9.2%	24	-9.5%	27
27	KC	-38.6%	26	-28.8%	32	-32.0%	0-2	-31.4%	30	-14.4%	8	-21.7%	32
28	NYG	-45.7%	28	-14.1%	26	-41.7%	0-2	13.1%	8	56.7%	32	-2.2%	21
29	BUF	-47.6%	23	-15.4%	27	-43.7%	0-2	-32.4%	31	28.8%	28	13.6%	2
30	OAK	-50.1%	27	-21.7%	30	-32.8%	0-2	-22.4%	25	19.1%	27	-8.6%	26
31	NYJ	-78.1%	32	-13.7%	25	-71.2%	0-2	-25.8%	27	39.9%	30	-12.4%	28
32	NO	-78.2%	30	-22.9%	31	-69.6%	0-2	-23.0%	26	47.3%	31	-7.9%	25

A note on DAVE: Like I did a year ago, I am tweaking the projections used in DAVE to account for major early injuries and quarterback changes. The main impact here is to drop the offensive projection for St. Louis (Orlando Pace) and Washington (Jon Jansen). I decided not to mess with any of the injured quarterback situations and the change to Derek Anderson doesn't end up affecting the Browns projection.

For this week's commentary, I'm going to take a look at the teams since 2001 whose DVOA after two games differed most from preseason projections. We don't care about situations like this year's Steelers, where there's a big difference simply because a team that already had a good projection blows out its first two opponents. So we'll leave out any team that starts well with a projection above 3.0% or starts badly with a projection below -3.0%. We also want teams that looked good or bad in both games, not teams that started 1-1 with one close game and one blowout. We'll grade each team as either poor projection or early fluke. Note that the projections are by the current system, not by the system used that year.

STRONG STARTS

2002 Chargers
Projection: -1.6% DVOA
After 2 Games: 84.0% DVOA

The Chargers started out 6-1, then had a bye week, and then ended 2-7. It was one of the great second-half collapses in recent memory. They won their first two games 34-6 at Cincinnati and then 24-3 against the expansion Texans at home. Of course, by the end of the season, with opponent adjustments in place, the DVOA for these games went from 84.0% to 51.4%. The third win came in Arizona, 23-15. That's three wins to start the season -- against three of the bottom four teams in the league. Verdict: Early fluke.

2001 Chargers
Projection: 1.9% DVOA
After 2 Games: 70.3% DVOA

Honestly, what was with the Chargers at the turn of the century? They had those years with great defense and the worst quarterbacks in history, then these two years where they started strong and collapsed. The 2001 Chargers started 5-2 and then lost nine straight to finish the year. Their two biggest wins of the year according to DVOA were the opening 30-3 stomping of Washington and a 28-14 Week 3 win against Cincinnati. In between, they won 32-21 at Dallas. The 5-11 Chargers ended the year 11th in DVOA (6.8%) and 17th in weighted DVOA (-5.1%) because they were so bad after Week 7. Verdict: Early fluke.

2003 Bills
Projection: -4.4% DVOA
After 2 Games: 58.3% DVOA

One game will forever be used to caution people who get carried away after surprising Week 1 results: Buffalo 31, New England 0. In their second game, the Bills went on the road and beat the Jaguars 38-17. However, the Bills lost their next two, and by the time the Chiefs stomped them 38-5 on Sunday night of Week 8, nobody was talking about them as a serious contender. Verdict: Early fluke.

2005 Bucs
Projection: 2.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: 57.8% DVOA

This was the third year of Football Outsiders and by now it seemed we were stuck with the Bucs as the team that never had a record to match their DVOA. In our first Pro Football Prospectus, we wrote that we didn't believe the Bucs' somewhat positive projection. Whoops -- sort of. Although the Bucs ended up 11-5, they didn't end up with one of the top DVOA ratings in the league. They were actually 16th at 1.3% -- slightly below the projection, and far below their first two games. Verdict: Early fluke.

2004 Falcons
Projection: -11.8% DVOA
After 2 Games: 39.3% DVOA

This is a strange one. The Falcons started the year with a 21-19 victory in San Francisco that barely registered as positive (2.6%) and then beat St. Louis 34-17 with a much larger rating than that score indicates (76.0%). Remember, both of those ratings do not include opponent adjustments, because we're talking about what things looked like after just two weeks. The Falcons ended up winning the division at 11-5 but actually ranked 17th with -2.7% DVOA, in large part because this was the year with the biggest discrepancy between the two conferences. Philadelphia was the only NFC team in the top 11, and the Falcons, if I remember right, had the second-highest DVOA in the NFC before they started resting guys for the playoffs in Week 16. Verdict: (Mildly) poor projection.

2002 Panthers
Projection: -2.2% DVOA
After 2 Games: 47.1% DVOA

Coming off a 1-15 season, the Panthers won their first three games, including a 31-7 drubbing of Detroit in Week 2. Then they lost eight straight and ended up 7-9 with a -9.2% DVOA, which ranked 24th. Verdict: Early fluke.

WEAK STARTS

2006 Bucs
Projection: 15.8% DVOA
After 2 Games: -57.6% DVOA

Dammit, Tampa, what is your problem? Coming off a wild card season, the Bucs got stomped at home by Baltimore, 27-0, then lost 14-3 in Atlanta. This one is blatantly obvious: Poor projection.

2006 Raiders
Projection: -2.3% DVOA
After 2 Games: -72.6% DVOA

Look, we had to convince everyone that the Raiders had defensive talent, but we all knew that the Raiders' offensive projection for 2006 made no sense whatsoever. Verdict: Poor projection.

2005 Ravens
Projection: 9.7% DVOA
After 2 Games: -58.7% DVOA

People in Baltimore were a bit worried when the Ravens lost to the Colts at home, 24-7, but it isn't like Indianapolis was a bad team. It was a bit more worrying when the Ravens dropped their second game in Tennessee, 25-10. By the 35-17 loss in Detroit in Week 5, it seemed clear the Ravens were not the team they had been in previous years. Their offense went from bad to miserable and their defense went from spectacular to merely very good. The projection system didn't see this coming at all. Verdict: Poor projection.

2003 Eagles
Projection: 6.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: -52.1% DVOA

Hey, everyone remember how weird this was? The Eagles lost to Tampa Bay 17-0, setting up a Week 2 meeting between two teams that were shut out in Week 1 despite high expectations: Philadelphia and New England. The Patriots won 31-10, and then the Eagles went on bye week. I'm sure Mike Tanier has a million stories about how Philly sports radio was freaking out during that week. Of course, the Eagles were fine, going 12-2 the rest of the way. This is a good example of why it is important to consider opponents in the first two weeks, even if our ratings do not -- once the full-season opponent adjustments were applied, the Eagles' DVOA for these two weeks was -31.6%, not -52.1%. The Eagles ended the season seventh in the NFL with a 15.6% DVOA, much higher than their preseason projection and way, way beyond what they did in the first two weeks. Verdict: Early fluke.

2002 Ravens
Projection: 1.9% DVOA
After 2 Games: -46.3% DVOA

At a certain point, this "hey, let's play without a quarterback" thing was going to come back and bite them. Baltimore started the year by losing 10-7 to Carolina. Remember how surprising that was, the 1-15 Panthers of 2001 beating the Super Bowl champions from just two years earlier? Then in Week 2, the Ravens were slammed 25-0 by the eventual champion Bucs. This signified that the Ravens were worse than the year before, but they weren't this much worse. After their bye in Week 3, the Ravens went 7-7, an inconsistent team that ended up with an average record and a relatively average -1.5% DVOA, much closer to their projection. Verdict: Early fluke.

2002 Steelers
Projection: 9.1% DVOA
After 2 Games: -32.8% DVOA

The Steelers opened with a rematch of the AFC Championship game and lost to the Patriots, 30-14. Then they hosted the Raiders and lost at home, 30-17. Again, consider the opponents. The Steelers were 0-2 but had lost to the defending AFC Champion and the eventual AFC Champion. Like Baltimore, Pittsburgh had a bye in Week 3. Unlike Baltimore, the Steelers weren't average after the bye -- they were very good, finishing the year 10-5-1 with a 7.3% DVOA. Verdict: Early fluke.

2006 Dolphins
Projection: 8.3% DVOA
After 2 Games: -32.8% DVOA

Oddly, the 2006 Dolphins end up with a much higher projection in the current system than they had with the earlier version of the projection system I was actually using before the 2006 season. Then, of course, they blew chunks. Verdict: Poor projection.

OK, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

First of all, understand that this is a production of Small Sample Size Theatre, and no trends here guarantee the future for any teams in 2007.

However, the trend seems to be really strong for teams which start strong despite a bad projection. It goes past just the teams listed above. Think back just one year. TheBills and 49ers began 2006 with two games with positive VOA ratings after terrible projections, although each team was 1-1, not 2-0. The 2006 Vikings started 2-0, although the wins were too close for the Vikings to show up on the list above. For all three teams, the good start turned out to be a fluke, and the DVOA by the end of the year was much closer to the preseason projection.

But wait, there's more. The 2004 Lions, the 2001 Bengals... After the 2004 Falcons, to find a team with a bad projection whose fast start showed that the projection was wrong, the best we can do is the 2003 Vikings, who had a preseason projection of -5.6% and a DVOA after two games of 27.0%. They ended the season with a 7.7% DVOA. Of course, they also blew a 6-0 start and missed the playoffs.

Now think about the opponents of the three teams that are 2-0 despite poor preseason projections. Houston beat the Chiefs, who are going to be terrible, and the Panthers, who are better but constantly seem to play below their talent level. Detroit beat the Raiders and Vikings, two teams we expected to be bad. Dallas beat the Giants and Dolphins, two teams we expected to be bad. There are strong, strong indications that this early success will not hold up over the long haul.

(That being said, Dallas isn't in quite the same boat as Detroit and Houston. Many of the FO writers felt the statistical projection for the Cowboys was suspiciously low, so the fast start isn't as much of a surprise.)

What about the teams with good projections and poor starts: the Eagles, the Jets, and -- although they managed to escape with a win Sunday -- the Jaguars? Similar teams since 2001 are a mixed bag. Some of them do right the ship and end up playing well the rest of the year. For others, the early losses showed that the projection was completely off-target. If there is any trend here, it is that up-and-down teams seem to keep losing, while the teams that have been consistent in recent years tend to rebound from early failure. (The 2005 Ravens are an exception.) To be frank, this trend fits with common sense. I think the chances that our projections were wrong for the Jaguars and Jets are much higher than the chance that our projection was wrong for the Eagles. Don't jump off the bridge yet, Philadelphians. Remember 2003!

Finally, in the Quick Reads comments [10], someone asked about Josh McCown's performance in the Oakland-Denver game that the data parser originally didn't process correctly. Yes, it was as bad as you thought it was. McCown was 8-for-16 with just 73 passing yards, one touchdown, three interceptions, four sacks, and two fumbles (both recovered by Oakland). That day was worth -17.5 PAR passing, although he did earn 1.7 PAR rushing with two scrambles for 28 yards. It doesn't quite reach the level of the really atrocious games of history, stuff like Rex Grossman's Monday night in Arizona last year, but it was pretty bad.