Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

MurrayLat13.jpg

» Scramble for the Ball: With All the Fixings

An idiot's (two idiots'?) guide to Thanksgiving football, prepped and primed for the monsters-in-law who only watch these three games in a year.

02 Feb 2015

Super Bowl XLIX Quick Reads

by Vince Verhei and Aaron Schatz

It's certainly not going to make anybody in Seattle feel better to note that the Seattle Seahawks ended Super Bowl XLIX with a higher DVOA rating than the New England Patriots.

DVOA (with opponent adjustments)
TEAM TOT OFF DEF ST
NE 22% 25% 5% 2%
SEA 41% 31% -10% 0%
VOA (no opponent adjustments)
TEAM TOT OFF DEF ST
NE -6% 13% 22% 2%
SEA 23% 27% 3% 0%

The explanation for these numbers is pretty simple. DVOA is measuring performance per play, no matter how many plays are run. New England ran 70 offensive plays, not including kneeldowns at the end of the game, and Seattle ran only 53 offensive plays. However, New England gained 5.2 yards per play with two turnovers, while Seattle gained 7.5 yards per play with one turnover. Obviously, that single turnover was hugely important, but DVOA is not a win expectancy system. It's not designed to tell us how meaningful every single play is in one game. Instead, it is designed to measure what performance on every play tells us about how good a team is over the long run. Russell Wilson's final interception may suggest that the Seahawks are more likely to throw interceptions than we would have thought otherwise, but not that they are going to throw interceptions on the goal line with the entire season on the line on a regular basis.

This is not the first time that the losing team in the Super Bowl has put up a higher DVOA rating.

  • By far the biggest "negative gap" in Super Bowl DVOA came when Pittsburgh narrowly beat Arizona in Super Bowl XLIII. Arizona had 65.0% DVOA for that game, while Pittsburgh was at -37.3% DVOA. Obviously, part of the reason for that difference comes from opponent adjustments, because that Arizona team was so mediocre during the regular season. Even without opponent adjustments, Arizona finished at 36.4% VOA while Pittsburgh was at -45.7% VOA. One of the most important plays in that game was James Harrison's 100-yard pick-six, which the DVOA system sees as just a red-zone interception by Kurt Warner with whatever the average return of a pick from that location on the field is.
  • Two years ago, in Super Bowl XLVII, we had San Francisco with 25.8% DVOA and Baltimore with 23.7% DVOA.
  • In the other Super Bowl that Seattle fans want to forget, Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks had 36.5% DVOA and the Pittsburgh Steelers were only at 20.7% DVOA.
  • In Super Bowl XXXVIII, the underdog Carolina Panthers finished with 24.5% DVOA and the New England Patriots had -0.6% DVOA. However, the Patriots actually finished higher in VOA without opponent adjustments, 4.5% VOA to -2.7% VOA.
  • In Super Bowl XXV, after Scott Norwood pushed it wide right, we ended up with Buffalo at 29.8% DVOA and the New York Giants at 22.1% DVOA.

Before we get to the Quick Reads DYAR stats, we also want to point you to a survey we've prepared to help us make Quick Reads even better in the 2015 season and beyond. Please take a minute or two and take a look.

Quarterbacks
Rk
Player
Team
CP/AT
Yds
TD
INT
Total
DYAR
Pass
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
1.
Tom Brady NE
37/50
328
4
2
123
123
0
Stylistically, you're not likely to find a Super Bowl matchup of two such disparate quarterbacks. Brady's average pass traveled only 5.9 yards past the line of scrimmage; 19 of Russell Wilson's 21 passes were deeper than that. In fact, Brady's average completion came just 3.6 yards downfield. The Patriots gained 196 of their 328 receiving yards (60 percent) after the catch. So it's not surprising that Brady only threw for three first downs on first down, even though he went 13-of-20, gaining 90 yards in the process, plus one sack. He had a lot of third-down conversions, six in all, on 7-of-12 passing for 86 yards. Three of his five 20-plus-yard completions came on third downs, but so did both of his interceptions. Really, most of his damage was done on second down, when he went 17-of-18 for 152 yards and 11 first downs, including all four touchdowns.
2.
Russell Wilson SEA
12/21
247
2
1
59
42
17
Wilson's game-sealing interception was worth -73 DYAR. Remarkably, 13 of Wilson's 21 throws qualified as deep passes, traveling more than 15 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. He completed six of those throws for 201 yards. Wilson has less than one-third as many completions as Brady, but he had five completions of 25 yards or more, while Brady had zero. So no, big plays were not hard to come by. But he struggled to sustain drives, going 2-of-6 for 17 yards on third downs, with two first downs and a sack. He was at his best throwing to his left, where he went 5-of-6 for 119 yards. Four of those completions resulted in first downs, including a touchdown; the other was a 9-yard gain on first-and-10. The Patriots were 30th in coverage against tight ends in the regular season, yet somehow Wilson did not throw a single pass to a tight end. Oddly, but not surprisingly if you watched the game, Wilson played better when tied or trailing (7-of-12 for 159 yards, one touchdown, six other first downs, one sack, and one critical interception) than he did when tied (1-of-2 for 45 yards with a sack) or with the lead (4-of-7 for 43 yards with one touchdown, one other first down, and a sack). His three carries all came on first-and-10; they gained 7, 17, and 15 yards.


Four most valuable running backs (Total)
Rk
Player
Team
Runs
Rush
Yds
Rush
TD
Rec
Rec
Yds
Rec
TD
Total
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
Rec
DYAR
1.
Marshawn Lynch SEA
24
102
1
1/2
31
0
41
30
12
Twenty-two of Lynch's 24 runs gained at least 1 yard, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch's Success Rate was 58 percent, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch's five first downs (one of them a touchdown) included conversions on second-and-1, second-and-3, and third-and-1, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch had ten carries on second down, gaining positive yards on all of them and at least 3 yards on 9 of them, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1.
2.
Shane Vereen NE
4
13
0
11/12
64
0
21
1
21
Vereen's only successful carry was a 7-yard gain on first-and-10. Only one of his catches gained more than 10 yards (a 16-yarder in the second quarter), but he had five first downs through the air, including conversions on all four of his targets with 3 yards or less to go for a first down.
3.
Robert Turbin SEA
2
21
0
0/0
0
0
9
9
0
Ordinarily we would not list a running back with only two carries here, but hey, it's the Super Bowl, and we have space. Turbin's first carry went for 19 yards, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. His second carry was a 2-yard gain on second-and-3, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Between Lynch, Wilson, and Turbin, Seattle's rushing offense DVOA in the Super Bowl was 35.4%, and yet the Seahawks THREW A PASS ON SECOND-AND-GOAL FROM THE 1.
3.
LeGarrette Blount NE
14
40
0
0/0
0
0
-8
-8
0
Blount's only first down was an 8-yard gain on third-and-1. Ten of his 14 carries gained 2 yards or less, including two stuffs for no gain or a loss.


Five most valuable wide receivers and tight ends
Rk
Player
Team
Rec
Att
Yds
Avg
TD
Total
DYAR
1.
Chris Matthews SEA
4
5
109
27.2
1
58
Between this game and the onside kick recovery against Green Bay, it was quite a postseason for Matthews, especially considering he only played 51 snaps (just 19 on offense) in the regular season. Matthews' four receptions in the Super Bowl -- the only receptions of his career -- were gains of 44 and 45 yards, an 11-yard touchdown, and a 9-yard gain on first-and-10.
2.
Julian Edelman NE
9
12
109
12.1
1
48
Edelman had 43 DYAR receiving, 6 DYAR rushing for his one carry for 7 yards. His five first downs on the day included three third-down conversions, with 8, 9, and 14 yards to go.
3.
Danny Amendola NE
5
7
48
9.6
1
27
Four of Amendola's receptions went for first downs; the fifth was a 6-yard gain on second-and-8.
4.
Ricardo Lockette SEA
3
5
59
19.7
0
19
Lockette's three receptions all picked up first downs, and gained 23, 25, and 11 yards.
5.
Rob Gronkowski NE
6
10
68
11.3
1
15
Five of Gronk's six receptions produced first downs, including two third-down conversions and a 22-yard go-ahead touchdown.


Least valuable wide receiver or tight end
Rk
Player
Team
Rec
Att
Yds
Avg
TD
Total
DYAR
1.
Jermaine Kearse SEA
3
6
45
15.0
0
0
Kearse's receptions gained 6, 6, and 33 yards, but he was also the target on incompletions on third-and-8 and third-and-2. Obviously, our numbers do not consider "difficulty of catch" or else Kearse would be ranked a bit higher. Two other receivers in the game had negative DYAR: New England's Michael Hoomanawanui (one target, one catch for 4 yards on first-and-10, -3 DYAR) and Seattle's Bryan Walters (one target, an incomplete pass on third-and-9, -6 DYAR).

Note: there will be Football Outsiders players in Madden 15 Ultimate Team based on Super Bowl performance, but we don't have those to announce quite yet.

Posted by: Vincent Verhei on 02 Feb 2015

58 comments, Last at 04 Feb 2015, 7:26pm by herewegobrowniesherewego

Comments

1
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 1:40pm

Does Jermaine Kearse's job description read "Be absolutely terrible until something insane has to happen"?

15
by rfh1001 :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 4:24pm

It's sort of hilarious. If you just watched Seahawks highlights you'd assume Kearse should get fed a lot more balls.

Butler's play on the Kearse catch - getting up and pushing Kearse out of bounds - was not as insanely great as his interception, but it was a great play.

2
by techvet :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 2:33pm

...but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1.

4
by Paul R :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 2:44pm

That was one of those "hidden plays" which secretly have a big impact on games, but which the average viewer wouldn't even notice.

7
by Vincent Verhei :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:17pm

This is my favorite reader comment ever.

3
by Paul R :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 2:40pm

Somewhere out there is a guy who picked Chris Matthews for his fantasy team. I'm happy for that guy.

5
by big10freak :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 2:46pm

Other than the curious decision to cover Gronkowski with a linebacker one on one Seattle did a fine job against a tremendous player.

To New england's credit they found other options.

6
by reiniroosh :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:03pm

I loved their underneath crossers.
Seattle played their "we play cover 3" strategy.
OK, so that gives up the flats and underneath routes, and they rally on the tackles.
NE just executed these so well, lots of hitches and under games. Very few dropped passes and no fumbles. Brady was particularly accurate all game, and hit a few of the crosses for big gains after the catch by zipping it in there.

10
by Will Allen :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:45pm

Seattle tackled poorly last night, by their standards. I have no idea if injuries played a role in that.

18
by GrandVezir :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 5:30pm

One of the New England players in the post-game hoopla mentioned that Seattle's defense was faster, but New England's receivers were quicker. So the game plan was short passes, followed by quick cuts in space to dodge Seattle's fast linebackers and secondary.

If you look at the best YAC plays for New England (especially by Edelman and Vereen), it wasn't so much that the receivers were breaking tackles, but rather making quick cuts to make the tackler miss.

24
by ClavisRa :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 10:25pm

I disagree. Seattle tackled quite well, but Brady did a fantastic job of delivering his passes on time to a great location that gave the receivers space to run into. The YAC was about passing route concepts that cleared space in the zones, and accurate, on time throws to claim all those yards. Then when Seattle played man, Brady found the mismatches. Really, it was a perfect game plan by the Pats. Only Seattle's ridiculous number of improbable big plays combined with Brady's Achilles Heel, throwing off platform with pressure in his face, kept that game competitive. Pats should win that match up 75-80% of the time.

26
by Will Allen :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 10:35pm

What do you suppose the number of missed tackles was?

11
by Will Allen :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:46pm

I have the repeat post virus.

8
by Otis Taylor89 :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:29pm

What.a.game.

Probably the best SB game I've ever seen and I've been watching them since SB IV.
After years of really bad games, the NFL has really come up with some dandys in the past 15+ years.
Boy, Wilson is a player, but I would have liked to see him run it just a little more than he did. SEA also needs a smaller, quick receiver say a Golden Tate type, to go with their tall wide outs.

20
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 6:03pm

Realised I've watched them for thirty years since XIX. I enjoyed those 80s/90s blowouts when I was younger but for a long time XXIII & XXV were the pinnacle. Then the last 15 years almost all have gone down to the last few mins.

But for me what elevated this one was the twist at the end.

I thought I knew the storyline.
- Patriots typically high scoring offense is stymied by super defense
- Patriots hang in there to score and take the lead late in the 4th.
- Other team then drives the field and completes a miracle pass.
- BB/TB are assured of losing a 3rd consecutive SB in the final seconds
- Then the twist ... interception.

29
by Sixknots :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 11:50pm

Yes, I've watched EVERY Super Bowl and before that the Ice Bowl. And this was one of the best and certainly most competitive ever. Crap, give the ball to the Beast!

9
by dreessen :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:41pm

So far all Wilson playoff losses are devastating heartbreakers.

Tharold Simon is going to need to work on not getting burned while on an island in the red zone. Deja Vu all over again from the Carolina game.

12
by Mugsy :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 3:59pm

"SEA also needs a smaller, quick receiver"...

Maybe a guy like Percy Harvin is all they need to turn the corner.

14
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 4:06pm

Seattle needs a talented receiver. Or maybe the problem isn't the receivers.

33
by Mike B. In Va :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 10:07am

Maybe keeping Golden Tate wouldn't have been such a bad idea?

13
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 4:05pm

They ran a graphic just before Wilson's first completion about the "longest period without a completion in the Super Bowl."

My immediate thought was "Has he even thrown a pass yet?"

Wilson spent the entire first half (behind mostly decent pass pro) sitting back, and then scrambling around, and then running for two yards. Either he was a deer in the headlights and wouldn't pull the trigger, or NE's downfield coverage was insanely good. It wasn't like later in the game he didn't take chances with the football. Seattle's offense was Marshawn Lynch, five linemen who played okay, and the Keystone Kops.

Wilson deserved the MVP award if Edelman didn't get it. He did more than anyone to help New England win.

Edelman is my first choice though. I think he had more YAC than Brady had in the air all night.

17
by dank067 :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 4:52pm

Wilson didn't play great yesterday but I don't think his hesitance to throw the ball early in the game suggested he was a deer in the headlights or anything like that. We can wait for all 22 to confirm but Collinsworth made a point of saying nobody was open.

You can call Seattle's passing game yesterday Keystone Kops, but it's not that much different from how Green Bay attacked New England in the first half of their game in Week 13—lots of shots downfield at guys not named Revis or Browner.

25
by ClavisRa :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 10:30pm

Wilson threw downfield to covered receivers all game, and almost every time they made the recpetion, which is boggling. What mystifies me is how the safeties were never in position to help on even a single deep pass.

27
by Will Allen :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 10:41pm

There wasn't anything mystical about it. Other than the last long pass, the defenders didn't play the ball well enough. In other words, the receivers, especially Matthews, outfought them for the ball. Then the Patriots got sick of watching a big guy dominate smaller defenders, they adjusted, and the long passes became harder to complete, although there was still a critical drop on a deep catch of a little above average difficulty.

28
by PatsFan :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 10:59pm

Actually, if you look really closely on the replay you'll see that the DB (which I believe was Butler) got his hand on Kearse's arm as Kearse was trying to reel it in.

Not saying Kearse shouldn't have caught it, but it wasn't an uncontested drop, either.

32
by Will Allen :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 12:51am

Oh, it was contested, but very, very, catchable, and if it is caught, the odds of the Pats completing the comeback drop quite a bit. Just one more inflection point in a game full of them.

34
by SandyRiver :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 10:44am

And the arm being grabbed included the hand that was beneath the ball, so that a hard yank was more likely (given some inattention by the receiver, perhaps) to dislodge it.

16
by Mugsy :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 4:50pm

maybe Wilfork should have been MVP. Carroll took a look and saw Wilfork on the goal line, panicked and called for a pass play ...on 2nd and goal from the 1...........

21
by BJR :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 6:36pm

Wilfork did blow up a Lynch carry on 3rd&2 in the first quarter. So yeah, that was probably noted....

19
by Led :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 5:35pm

"The explanation for these numbers is pretty simple. DVOA is measuring performance per play, no matter how many plays are run. New England ran 70 offensive plays, not including kneeldowns at the end of the game, and Seattle ran only 53 offensive plays."

Sorry, I don't understand this. Every play on offense for NE is a play on defense for Seattle. How does the fact that NE ran more plays explain the difference in DVOA/VOA?

22
by Athelas :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 6:37pm

If the measure is performance per play and let's say the Seahawks and the Patriots ended up with roughly the same total performance, but the Patriots needed many more plays to reach that, the Patriots had less performance per play.

30
by Led :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 12:25am

The Patriots didn't have more plays because total DVOA/VOA measures offense and defense. That's my point. Both teams have the same number of plays. Per DVOA, Seattle was more effective when it was on offense (which was relatively few plays) and when it was on defense (which was a lot of plays), and therefore was more effective overall per DVOA.

31
by Led :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 12:27am

Double post

23
by Alternator :: Mon, 02/02/2015 - 8:41pm

It doesn't - what it means is that New England won the game largely by being moderately good many, many times with very few failures. Seattle was very good many less times, with more failures. Thus the average Seattle play was more successful, but New England strung together SO MANY MORE good-enough plays that they won the game.

35
by usernaim250 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 10:44am

I thought New England played just a bit better than the Seahawks and deserved the win. I'm surprised to see the Pats VOA on offense wasn't higher. They moved up and down the field. I'd guess the two interceptions were killers, because otherwise, they had many successful plays.

I also thought luck/arbitrary/50/50 plays were on Seattle's side.

The roughing the punter was huge. That was the one, totally no brainer blown call of the game, and it's a pretty big one too. 1st and 10 from the 50, they likely score. Ripple effect obviously changes everything, but maybe no interception, maybe no time for Seattle's end of half drive. It had to be worth 4-5% win probability anyway.

Also, though it was quite close and thus not an egregious call by any means, there is no way Kearse got the yard to gain on the 3rd and 6 in Seattle's first touchdown drive. That's also worth some Win Probability and seemingly had a large ripple effect.

And of course the catch at the end was one of the luckier plays in Super Bowl history. Now Seattle was still had a minute six, and was carving up the defense, and it would have been 2nd and 10 from midfield if they didn't come up with it. They might well have won if Kearse didn't catch it. But it was a 37% win probability play if I'm reading the graph properly.

36
by SFC B :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 11:13am

The missed PI from Butler was the other egregious missed call.

38
by slomojoe :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 11:32am

Right, but as Butler is falling, the refs may or may not be looking at him on the ground rather than at the action. It was literally a shoestring move, after all, and they may genuinely have MISSED it. On the other hand, the refs SAW the roughing the punter penalty, threw the flag, and CHOSE inexplicably to call it something else.

37
by slomojoe :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 11:31am

deleted

39
by Vincent Verhei :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 1:49pm

Because so many people are asking about it:

Seattle's offense had 30 successful plays (average gain: 12.8 yards) and 24 unsuccessful plays (average gain: 0.5 yards), for a success rate of 56 percent.

Seattle's offense had 35 successful plays (average gain: 9.7 yards) and 35 unsuccessful plays (average gain: 1.1 yards), for a success rate of 50 percent.

41
by Mike B. In Va :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 2:13pm

Wow. That's a lot of offense from Seattle. ;)

40
by Nevic :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 2:12pm

Seattle lost the game, despite having higher DVOA and VOA, in heartbreaking fashion. Sounds like what happened to GB in Seattle in the NFC Championship.

42
by Mike B. In Va :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 2:14pm

Yeah, there does seem to be something Karmic about it...

43
by PatsFan :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 3:24pm

Well, there's the whole "DET loses to DAL in heartbreaking fashion. DAL loses to GB in heartbreaking fashion. GB loses to SEA in heartbreaking fashion. SEA loses to NE in heartbreaking fashion" chain.

52
by Steve in WI :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 5:38pm

Of course, "heartbreaking fashion" for DET and DAL involved the officiating (and even those weren't identical issues, as I think most people would agree that by the admittedly stupid rules for what constitutes a catch, Dez Bryant didn't catch that ball). For GB and SEA, it was entirely poor decision-making on their part.

I'd say Seattle's mistake is more heartbreaking because it was one play that I have to believe, regardless of what he says now, Pete Carroll would love to have back. I think Mike McCarthy still sees nothing wrong with getting a double-digit lead and deciding to stop trying to score.

53
by Otis Taylor89 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 6:07pm

Dezs catch also didn't guantee a win as there was plenty of time for GB to come back and score again.

44
by commissionerleaf :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 3:32pm

If I had one takeaway from this game, it was that New England's receivers are underestimated. If you watched the 2013 SB (or the playoff loss this year to Indy, you saw the much more highly touted Denver receivers wearing Seattle's (Indy's) secondary like shoulder pads on every 4 yard catch. Yet Julian Edelman can get four yards of separation on a regular basis?

45
by Led :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:11pm

Good point. Edelman drives me crazy, but I have developed a grudging respect for him. He is a real pain in the neck to cover. I think he's better than Welker was because he's a more physical runner after the catch. And Vereen is very good too. Part of it is how good the NE coaches are at maximizing their talents, but not even Belichick can make chicken salad out of you know what.

46
by SandyRiver :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:17pm

And make the first Legionier of Boom whiff...

48
by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:20pm

It's really startling. The difference between last year's Super Bowl and this came down to two things:

1.) Seattle's pass rush was a lot better/healthier last year. Losing the guys they did didn't hurt them for a lot of the season, but then losing Avril was the killer.

2.) NE generated way more YAC. The Broncos also tried a short passing game, but the Seahawks were on point tackling basically ever time; this year not so much (from even the second play, when Sherman missed an easy tackle on Edelman).

47
by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:18pm

No, not true. Manning only plays with all-pros, while Brady only plays with scrappy guys drafted in the eleventieth round.

50
by SandyRiver :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:21pm

Delete (Will's double-post disease) #46 was intended as reply to #44, but went awry.

49
by SandyRiver :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 4:20pm

Delete

54
by Otis Taylor89 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 6:15pm

The big reason Edelman is wide open a lot is there is so much attention paid to Gronk who, I still believe is the most dominate non-QB offensive player in the league right now. Can't be covered man to man or Brady will find him. If he is healthy in 2011 we would be talking 5 SBs for Brady.

55
by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 6:26pm

People love to say this, and yes it looks like when one team wins 21-17, if you bring back a Gronk-level player, they'll win, but in the regular season, the Giants beat a Gronk-led Patriots team, in Foxboro, without Nicks and Bradshaw.

57
by armchair journe... :: Wed, 02/04/2015 - 9:57am

Wait, are we talking Colts this season, or G-men a few years back? Same players!

//AJMQB

58
by herewegobrownie... :: Wed, 02/04/2015 - 7:26pm

It's interesting how many players the Colts and Giants have shared, probably partially because of the Manning brothers recommending them to each other.

See also many of their bargain-bin backup QBs (Battleship Lorenzen, Curtis Painter, Jim Sorgi.)

51
by alan frankel :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 5:07pm

another difference is the versatality of new englands recievers as film room pointed out earlier denvers WR's were much more limited route runners reply to# 48

56
by anotherpatsfan :: Tue, 02/03/2015 - 8:54pm

Which team's skill peeps amassed more DYAR?

Not sure if that total means anything but was curious