Week 8 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
Denver remains on top of this week's Football Outsiders DVOA ratings, and the Broncos still rank as one of the top ten teams in DVOA history despite a bit of a decline in recent weeks. Seattle remains in second place, although the Seahawks' overall rating drops after last night's narrow win over St. Louis. Indianapolis is third, with Carolina a surprising fourth and Cincinnati climbing from 11th to fifth thanks to their 49-9 drubbing of the New York Jets. Chicago climbs two spots to sixth, even on a bye week, although DVOA of course doesn't take into account the effect of injuries (or McCowns) on a team's future peformance. Close behind the Bears are three other NFC contenders, the Saints, 49ers, and Packers, and...
Wait a minute. Where the hell are the 8-0 Kansas City Chiefs?
The shocking answer is tenth place. The Chiefs drop six spots this week from fourth to tenth. Although many power rankings around the Internet will still have Kansas City in first place because they are slaves to ranking teams by win-loss record, it's pretty obvious that the Chiefs are not the best team in the league right now.
The biggest issue is schedule strength. We've pointed this out a few times this year, but the Chiefs' schedule has been phenomenally easy. The Chiefs have played only one opponent this year with an above-average DVOA, the Dallas Cowboys. If we take out the opponent adjustments and look at non-adjusted VOA, the Chiefs actually rank third in the league; the difference between the two ratings is more than 10 percentage points. Each week, as the opponent adjustments in our system become stronger and stronger, the Chiefs see their DVOA rating fall a little bit more. It doesn't help that the Chiefs have been declining a bit, with their three worst games by DVOA coming in the last three weeks. The game against Cleveland comes out as their worst of the year by DVOA, another reason for their big drop this week. In fact, DVOA has Cleveland outplaying the Chiefs this week even if we remove the opponent adjustments. The Browns gained 6.5 yards per play compared to just 4.7 yards per play for Kansas City, but were hurt by third-down efficiency (just 3-for-12) and the fact that they lost their one fumble while the Chiefs recovered theirs. Without opponent adjustments, that comes out to 19.5% DVOA for the Browns and -4.6% DVOA for the Chiefs. With opponent adjustments, it comes out to 28.1% DVOA for the Browns and -23.1% DVOA for the Chiefs.
(By the way, the Chiefs aren't the only team with huge opponent adjustments this season. Denver and San Diego have also had extremely easy schedules this season. Denver's gap between DVOA and VOA is almost as big as Kansas City's, but because the Broncos have been so good, the opponent adjustments don't knock them out of first place in our ratings.)
A couple weeks ago, we looked at where Kansas City stood among the "worst" 6-0 teams of all-time. At that point, the Chiefs weren't particularly low. However, only 14 teams since 1989 have made it to 8-0, and out of those teams, the Chiefs come out near the bottom. (Yes, one team that ranks below them ended up winning the Super Bowl, but remember that team got its best defensive player back from injury right before the playoffs.)
| 8-0 TEAMS, 1989-2013 | ||
| Year | Team | DVOA |
| 2007 | NE | 73.6% |
| 1991 | WAS | 58.8% |
| 2003 | KC | 44.4% |
| 1998 | DEN | 38.8% |
| 1990 | NYG | 38.1% |
| 2005 | IND | 35.8% |
| 2009 | IND | 31.2% |
| 2009 | NO | 30.8% |
| 2011 | GB | 27.7% |
| 2008 | TEN | 24.0% |
| 1990 | SF | 19.6% |
| 2013 | KC | 17.6% |
| 2006 | IND | 15.6% |
| 2012 | ATL | 13.2% |
 |
(Ed. Note: This table originally left out the 2012 Falcons, but they have now been added.)
Despite the slight decline in recent weeks, the Chiefs have been one of the most consistent teams in the league, ranking second in variance. Which team comes out ahead of them? Why, it's the other team with a win-loss record much better than its DVOA rating, the 6-2 New England Patriots. The Patriots drop a slot to 13th this week despite their win over Miami, because their win over Miami has been like almost all their other games this year: slightly above average. Right now, every New England Patriots game falls in a tiny range between -3% DVOA and 15% DVOA except for the Week 5 loss to Cincinnati (-17.8%) and the Week 6 win over New Orleans (26.4%).
The idea of the Patriots as the most consistent team in the league seems ridiculous, because they seem so inconsistent from drive to drive. Nonetheless, the Patriots may not be the enigma that everyone thinks they are. The Patriots are not suddenly a bad team. They seem to be a slightly above-average team that plays most games slightly above-average. Maybe the reason the Patriots are so hard for people to judge is that their performance this year is so different from what we've come to expect from the Patriots in recent years. Their defense ranks sixth in DVOA and has been the most consistent in the league (variance of only 2.0%) despite all the injuries in recent weeks. The offense, on the other hand is just 20th in offensive DVOA (12th in variance). Even stranger, the offense is being carried in part by the running game. The Patriots rank 12th in rushing DVOA but 24th in passing DVOA.
 |
It's hard to determine how to divy up the blame pie for Tom Brady's massive decline this year. Is his lack of accuracy related to the fact that he doesn't trust his new receivers? Is it related to age? An injury to his hand? How much do we blame the new receivers and how much do we blame Brady himself? What we do know is that Brady's year-to-year decline is one of the biggest for any quarterback in history.
For now, let's just look at quarterbacks since 1989 using DVOA ratings. After Week 8, Brady's DVOA rating stands at -16.6%. That's actually lower than replacement level, which is astonishing for a player who has led the league in passing DVOA three times and passing DYAR four times. As of right now, Brady's drop of over 50 percentage points in DVOA trails only Brett Favre's final season in Minnesota as the biggest year-to-year drop in DVOA for a quarterback with at least 300 passes in two straight seasons.
| Biggest Passing DVOA Decline, 1990-2013 (min. 300 passes) | ||||||||
| Player | Year | Team | Age | DVOA Y-1 | Rank | DVOA | Rank | Change |
| Brett Favre | 2010 | MIN | 41 | 34.5% | 4 | -23.1% | 38 | -57.6% |
| Tom Brady | 2013 | NE | 36 | 35.1% | 1 | -16.6% | 29 | -51.7% |
| Kerry Collins | 1997 | CAR | 25 | 17.5% | 6 | -26.0% | 41 | -43.4% |
| Matt Hasselbeck | 2006 | SEA | 31 | 32.2% | 4 | -10.6% | 31 | -42.8% |
| Brian Griese | 2001 | DEN | 26 | 34.7% | 2 | -4.2% | 24 | -38.9% |
| Boomer Esiason | 1990 | CIN | 29 | 28.1% | 5 | -10.8% | 25 | -38.9% |
| Mark Rypien | 1993 | WAS | 31 | 13.3% | 11 | -25.3% | 41 | -38.6% |
| Jay Cutler | 2009 | CHI | 26 | 17.0% | 7 | -21.4% | 30 | -38.4% |
| Chad Pennington | 2003 | NYJ | 27 | 40.6% | 1 | 3.1% | 19 | -37.4% |
| Jay Schroeder | 1991 | LARD | 30 | 33.6% | 1 | -3.7% | 21 | -37.3% |
| Marc Bulger | 2007 | STL | 30 | 16.7% | 11 | -19.7% | 40 | -36.4% |
| Jake Delhomme | 2009 | CAR | 34 | 13.2% | 10 | -23.1% | 32 | -36.4% |
One interesting thing about this list is that very few of the quarterbacks on the list are particularly old. A huge decline like this doesn't necessarily represent the end of a player's career. It's also worth noting that most of these players did not play a full season in the year listed in our table. There's a small sample size effect going on here, even given our minimum of 300 passes. That should give Patriots fans hope that while Brady may never be the Brady of 2007-2012 again, there's at least a pretty good chance he's going to be better than this over the last half of the 2013 season.
 |
One last aside: Since I went to look if the Chiefs were the worst 8-0 team ever, I figured I should also look to see if the Patriots are the worst 6-2 team ever. No, they are not. They aren't even in the bottom 20. But the actual list of the worst 6-2 teams ever is really quirky. The three worst 6-2 teams in DVOA history were all the Detroit Lions. They had -17.1% DVOA in 2007 (finished 7-9), -10.9% DVOA in 1993 (finished 10-6), and -8.0% DVOA in 1991 (finished 12-4). Two other teams had negative DVOA at 6-2, and both were in 1998: Atlanta at -8.0% DVOA and Oakland at -5.4% DVOA. Those teams went two completely different directions after midseason. Atlanta went on a crazy hot streak, winning its final eight games while raising its DVOA all the way up to 18.8% for the season. They finished with 30.3% weighted DVOA. Oakland went 2-6 in the second half of the season, finishing 27th in the league with -18.3% DVOA.
BEST AND WORST DVOA EVER WATCH
| BEST TOTAL DVOA THROUGH WEEK 8 |
x | BEST OFFENSIVE DVOA THROUGH WEEK 8 |
x | WORST TOTAL DVOA THROUGH WEEK 8 |
x | WORST OFFENSIVE DVOA THROUGH WEEK 8 |
x | WORST SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA THROUGH WEEK 8 |
||||||||||
| Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA |
| 2007 | NE | 73.6% | x | 2007 | NE | 49.7% | x | 2005 | SF | -63.1% | x | 1992 | SEA | -49.7% | x | 2010 | SD | -19.9% |
| 1991 | WAS | 62.8% | x | 1999 | WAS | 47.2% | x | 2013 | JAC | -62.2% | x | 2004 | MIA | -46.0% | x | 2008 | MIN | -17.6% |
| 1996 | GB | 54.0% | x | 1998 | DEN | 40.8% | x | 1993 | TB | -60.9% | x | 2005 | SF | -45.5% | x | 2013 | WAS | -15.8% |
| 2007 | IND | 48.7% | x | 2013 | DEN | 37.7% | x | 2009 | DET | -55.3% | x | 2010 | CAR | -44.4% | x | 1990 | DEN | -14.4% |
| 1994 | DAL | 48.2% | x | 2000 | IND | 35.9% | x | 2005 | MIN | -54.1% | x | 1996 | STL | -42.3% | x | 1995 | PHI | -14.0% |
| 2003 | KC | 45.2% | x | 2004 | IND | 35.5% | x | 2008 | KC | -53.3% | x | 1993 | TB | -40.8% | x | 1997 | STL | -13.7% |
| 2006 | CHI | 44.3% | x | 2000 | STL | 35.5% | x | 1991 | IND | -52.2% | x | 2013 | JAC | -40.5% | x | 1996 | ARI | -13.4% |
| 1999 | STL | 43.2% | x | 1992 | SF | 35.4% | x | 1996 | STL | -50.3% | x | 2002 | HOU | -40.3% | x | 1999 | CIN | -13.3% |
| 2013 | DEN | 42.9% | x | 2005 | DEN | 34.9% | x | 2009 | OAK | -50.3% | x | 2009 | OAK | -39.8% | x | 1994 | HOIL | -12.3% |
| 1998 | DEN | 41.9% | x | 2007 | IND | 34.7% | x | 2005 | HOU | -49.8% | x | 2006 | OAK | -39.2% | x | 1999 | IND | -12.1% |
| 1990 | CHI | 41.1% | x | 1995 | DAL | 33.9% | x | 1998 | WAS | -49.3% | x | 1991 | PHI | -39.2% | x | 2000 | CIN | -11.8% |
| 2009 | NE | 41.1% | x | 2002 | KC | 33.8% | x | 2000 | CIN | -48.6% | x | 2007 | SF | -39.1% | x | 2006 | ARI | -11.4% |
I've kept these lists to 12 teams each week, but if we extended the lists by two teams each, the 2013 New York Giants would show up as 14th on the "Worst Special Teams Ever" list.
* * * * *
 |
During the 2013 season, we'll be partnering with EA Sports to bring special Football Outsiders-branded items to Madden 25 Ultimate Team. Each week, we'll be picking out a handful of players who starred in that week's games. Some of them will be well-known players who stood out in standard stats. Others will be under-the-radar players who only stood out with advanced stats, including DYAR, Defeats, and our game charting coverage stats for cornerbacks. We'll announce the players each Tuesday in the DVOA commentary article, and the players will be available in Madden Ultimate Team packs the following weekend, beginning Friday night.
The Football Outsiders stars for Week 8 are:
- LT David Bakhtiari, GB: Limited Jared Allen to three hurries with no sacks or QB hits.
- C Alex Mack, CLE: No sacks or hurries allowed vs. NFL's best pass rush.
- LE Robert Quinn, STL: Three sacks, three QB hits, and TFL. (We also assume there were some hurries, but we haven't had a chance to chart that yet.)
- ROLB Marcus Benard, ARI: Sack, three QB hits, and two hurries.
- SS Troy Polamalu, PIT (Limited Edition): Sack, INT, PD, and TFL.
Most of you are probably asking: Where is Calvin Johnson? Well, in order to provide some variety in the game, the Madden 25 folks have asked us not to choose players who have been featured as either special elite Football Outsiders stars or Madden 25 Team of the Week stars in recent weeks. This week, that prevented us from choosing a lot of players that we were considering otherwise, including not just Megatron but also Andy Dalton and Sean Lee. And of course we can't choose players who made this week's Madden Team of the Week, and this week those players include players with high DYAR like Andre Ellington, Marvin Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Kenny Stills. Other players we considered this week who didn't make the cut: Mike Tolbert, Joe Thomas, and Chris Long.
* * * * *
All 2013 stat pages are now updated or will be updated in the next few minutes, including snap counts, playoff odds, and the FO Premium database.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through eight weeks of 2013, 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.)
[ad placeholder 3]
This week, we say goodbye to DAVE, our method which combines 2013 performance with our preseason projections. All numbers now represent 2013 only.
OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA 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) and week of season. WEIGHTED DVOA represents an attempt to figure out how a team is playing right now, as opposed to over the season as a whole, by making recent games more important than earlier games.
Because it is early in the season, opponent strength is at only 80 percent; it will increase 10 percent every week through Week 10. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.
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 |
WEIGHTED DVOA |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | DEN | 42.9% | 1 | 42.5% | 1 | 7-1 | 37.7% | 1 | 0.5% | 18 | 5.6% | 5 |
| 2 | SEA | 32.4% | 2 | 32.2% | 2 | 7-1 | 4.4% | 14 | -23.2% | 1 | 4.9% | 8 |
| 3 | IND | 26.1% | 3 | 26.2% | 3 | 5-2 | 17.1% | 5 | -4.4% | 9 | 4.6% | 9 |
| 4 | CAR | 23.5% | 6 | 23.6% | 4 | 4-3 | 12.8% | 9 | -9.9% | 5 | 0.8% | 14 |
| 5 | CIN | 22.4% | 11 | 22.8% | 5 | 6-2 | 7.5% | 11 | -11.0% | 4 | 3.8% | 11 |
| 6 | CHI | 20.9% | 8 | 21.2% | 6 | 4-3 | 17.0% | 7 | 0.3% | 17 | 4.2% | 10 |
| 7 | NO | 20.5% | 7 | 20.3% | 8 | 6-1 | 17.8% | 4 | -2.9% | 12 | -0.1% | 19 |
| 8 | SF | 20.0% | 10 | 20.3% | 7 | 6-2 | 17.1% | 6 | -2.1% | 14 | 0.8% | 15 |
| 9 | GB | 19.6% | 5 | 19.6% | 9 | 5-2 | 28.6% | 2 | 6.1% | 26 | -2.8% | 25 |
| 10 | KC | 17.6% | 4 | 17.3% | 10 | 8-0 | -1.6% | 16 | -12.7% | 3 | 6.5% | 3 |
| 11 | DAL | 11.9% | 9 | 12.2% | 11 | 4-4 | 6.7% | 12 | 2.1% | 21 | 7.3% | 2 |
| 12 | DET | 7.7% | 14 | 7.8% | 12 | 5-3 | 13.3% | 8 | 3.8% | 25 | -1.8% | 24 |
| 13 | NE | 7.2% | 12 | 7.2% | 13 | 6-2 | -6.4% | 20 | -6.2% | 6 | 7.4% | 1 |
| 14 | ARI | 2.7% | 19 | 3.2% | 14 | 4-4 | -14.6% | 26 | -17.2% | 2 | 0.1% | 18 |
| 15 | SD | 1.3% | 13 | 1.2% | 15 | 4-3 | 25.0% | 3 | 22.8% | 32 | -1.0% | 23 |
| 16 | PIT | -4.1% | 18 | -4.0% | 16 | 2-5 | -2.7% | 17 | 0.8% | 19 | -0.6% | 20 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
WEIGHTED DVOA |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | BUF | -7.0% | 17 | -7.4% | 17 | 3-5 | -9.3% | 21 | -6.0% | 7 | -3.7% | 27 |
| 18 | ATL | -7.7% | 15 | -8.0% | 18 | 2-5 | 8.6% | 10 | 15.6% | 30 | -0.7% | 22 |
| 19 | BAL | -8.6% | 23 | -8.4% | 19 | 3-4 | -14.5% | 25 | -4.2% | 10 | 1.7% | 13 |
| 20 | TEN | -9.6% | 21 | -10.0% | 21 | 3-4 | -3.1% | 18 | -1.3% | 15 | -7.9% | 29 |
| 21 | CLE | -9.8% | 25 | -9.7% | 20 | 3-5 | -11.4% | 23 | 3.5% | 23 | 5.1% | 6 |
| 22 | MIA | -10.0% | 22 | -10.2% | 22 | 3-4 | -6.0% | 19 | 3.3% | 22 | -0.7% | 21 |
| 23 | NYJ | -11.2% | 16 | -11.3% | 23 | 4-4 | -22.1% | 31 | -5.9% | 8 | 5.0% | 7 |
| 24 | PHI | -12.4% | 20 | -12.2% | 24 | 3-5 | 6.3% | 13 | 13.5% | 29 | -5.2% | 28 |
| 25 | MIN | -13.6% | 27 | -13.9% | 25 | 1-6 | -10.4% | 22 | 8.9% | 28 | 5.7% | 4 |
| 26 | STL | -14.8% | 26 | -14.4% | 26 | 3-5 | -13.6% | 24 | 3.7% | 24 | 2.5% | 12 |
| 27 | TB | -17.3% | 24 | -17.7% | 27 | 0-7 | -18.0% | 30 | -0.3% | 16 | 0.5% | 16 |
| 28 | OAK | -22.1% | 28 | -21.7% | 28 | 3-4 | -16.8% | 28 | 1.8% | 20 | -3.4% | 26 |
| 29 | HOU | -23.7% | 30 | -24.4% | 30 | 2-5 | -17.1% | 29 | -3.1% | 11 | -9.7% | 30 |
| 30 | WAS | -24.2% | 29 | -24.3% | 29 | 2-5 | -0.4% | 15 | 8.0% | 27 | -15.8% | 32 |
| 31 | NYG | -25.3% | 31 | -24.8% | 31 | 2-6 | -16.5% | 27 | -2.4% | 13 | -11.2% | 31 |
| 32 | JAC | -62.2% | 32 | -61.8% | 32 | 0-8 | -40.5% | 32 | 22.1% | 31 | 0.3% | 17 |
- NON-ADJUSTED TOTAL DVOA does not include the adjustments for opponent strength or the adjustments for weather and altitude in special teams, and only penalizes offenses for lost fumbles rather than all fumbles.
- ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
- PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance. Teams are ranked from most consistent (#1, lowest variance) to least consistent (#32, highest variance).
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 1 | DEN | 42.9% | 7-1 | 52.1% | 8.0 | 1 | -14.6% | 31 | -1.3% | 19 | 7.5% | 13 |
| 2 | SEA | 32.4% | 7-1 | 33.2% | 6.1 | 3 | -4.8% | 28 | -4.4% | 23 | 14.5% | 25 |
| 3 | IND | 26.1% | 5-2 | 26.5% | 6.1 | 2 | 0.3% | 15 | -11.2% | 32 | 8.2% | 14 |
| 4 | CAR | 23.5% | 4-3 | 29.0% | 5.1 | 9 | -6.1% | 29 | 1.6% | 10 | 12.9% | 23 |
| 5 | CIN | 22.4% | 6-2 | 22.9% | 5.7 | 6 | 2.9% | 13 | -3.4% | 21 | 13.0% | 24 |
| 6 | CHI | 20.9% | 4-3 | 18.6% | 5.8 | 4 | -2.4% | 23 | 0.0% | 16 | 7.5% | 12 |
| 7 | NO | 20.5% | 6-1 | 27.5% | 5.3 | 8 | -1.6% | 21 | 6.7% | 7 | 8.3% | 15 |
| 8 | SF | 20.0% | 6-2 | 19.9% | 4.9 | 12 | -3.7% | 27 | 1.9% | 9 | 20.2% | 30 |
| 9 | GB | 19.6% | 5-2 | 22.6% | 5.8 | 5 | -0.9% | 18 | -0.2% | 17 | 5.7% | 9 |
| 10 | KC | 17.6% | 8-0 | 29.2% | 5.7 | 7 | -19.1% | 32 | 7.6% | 4 | 4.2% | 2 |
| 11 | DAL | 11.9% | 4-4 | 16.3% | 5.0 | 10 | -0.9% | 19 | -4.6% | 24 | 5.4% | 7 |
| 12 | DET | 7.7% | 5-3 | 5.6% | 4.7 | 13 | 3.7% | 9 | -5.1% | 26 | 4.4% | 4 |
| 13 | NE | 7.2% | 6-2 | 10.2% | 4.9 | 11 | -2.7% | 24 | 0.4% | 12 | 1.6% | 1 |
| 14 | ARI | 2.7% | 4-4 | -0.6% | 4.5 | 14 | 8.0% | 4 | -5.5% | 27 | 9.4% | 16 |
| 15 | SD | 1.3% | 4-3 | 4.7% | 4.2 | 15 | -13.1% | 30 | 6.9% | 6 | 5.9% | 11 |
| 16 | PIT | -4.1% | 2-5 | -6.5% | 3.2 | 21 | -3.1% | 25 | 1.3% | 11 | 4.3% | 3 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 17 | BUF | -7.0% | 3-5 | -5.4% | 3.7 | 17 | 4.2% | 8 | -11.0% | 31 | 15.7% | 26 |
| 18 | ATL | -7.7% | 2-5 | -4.4% | 3.7 | 18 | -3.3% | 26 | 10.1% | 2 | 5.3% | 6 |
| 19 | BAL | -8.6% | 3-4 | -7.8% | 3.4 | 20 | 1.1% | 14 | 4.7% | 8 | 11.1% | 19 |
| 20 | TEN | -9.6% | 3-4 | -3.0% | 3.0 | 25 | 4.6% | 7 | -9.7% | 30 | 10.3% | 18 |
| 21 | CLE | -9.8% | 3-5 | -4.5% | 2.9 | 26 | 3.5% | 10 | -5.0% | 25 | 11.5% | 20 |
| 22 | MIA | -10.0% | 3-4 | -9.3% | 3.0 | 23 | 3.0% | 12 | 0.4% | 13 | 12.6% | 22 |
| 23 | NYJ | -11.2% | 4-4 | -10.3% | 3.5 | 19 | -1.1% | 20 | -2.9% | 20 | 16.2% | 27 |
| 24 | PHI | -12.4% | 3-5 | -11.5% | 3.7 | 16 | -2.3% | 22 | 0.4% | 14 | 21.0% | 31 |
| 25 | MIN | -13.6% | 1-6 | -12.7% | 3.1 | 22 | 4.7% | 6 | 7.8% | 3 | 11.5% | 21 |
| 26 | STL | -14.8% | 3-5 | -16.3% | 2.7 | 27 | -0.4% | 17 | 12.0% | 1 | 18.6% | 29 |
| 27 | TB | -17.3% | 0-7 | -17.3% | 1.9 | 30 | 3.2% | 11 | 7.2% | 5 | 4.8% | 5 |
| 28 | OAK | -22.1% | 3-4 | -16.9% | 2.0 | 28 | -0.4% | 16 | -1.0% | 18 | 5.8% | 10 |
| 29 | HOU | -23.7% | 2-5 | -23.8% | 3.0 | 24 | 5.5% | 5 | -5.7% | 28 | 21.6% | 32 |
| 30 | WAS | -24.2% | 2-5 | -27.8% | 1.9 | 29 | 9.8% | 2 | -3.7% | 22 | 5.5% | 8 |
| 31 | NYG | -25.3% | 2-6 | -33.5% | 1.6 | 31 | 9.8% | 3 | 0.3% | 15 | 17.0% | 28 |
| 32 | JAC | -62.2% | 0-8 | -65.4% | 0.0 | 32 | 12.9% | 1 | -6.8% | 29 | 9.6% | 17 |
Comments
195 comments, Last at 17 Jul 2019, 8:39pm
#1 by Doug vegas (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 5:40pm
Awesome to see you guys pick Mr. Polamalu as the LE card this week my MUT team has all the great Steelers players which allow me to dominate online in the game since my Steelers cant seem to do it on the field.
#2 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 5:43pm
What the heck? I thought Seattle played far worse than Kansas City. Seattle's defensive DVOA actually improved? I know that opponent adjustments are increasing, but that's still amazing. SF's, Arizona's and Carolina's big wins must've really helped here.
#13 by Ian Chapman (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:07pm
I think you've answered your own question. If you look at DVOA vs unadjusted DVOA Seattle doesn't lose very much. Why? Because if you look just at DVOA, Seattle has played a fairly brutal schedule to this point and KC (and to be fair Denver) have not.
Do note that Seattle ranks near the bottom in terms of variability and I think we saw some of that last night.
#25 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:07pm
Consistently underwhelming? I don't think so. The 12-7 win against Carolina was infinitely better than the atrocity last night, especially with opponent adjustments taken in. I would rank the five games Carolina > Arizona = Indy >> Houston >> St. Louis.
#31 by theslothook // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:22pm
At some point, you have to start really wondering if this offense is going to cost them big in the postseason. There offense hasn't been that great most of the year. AFter the 49er loss to the colts, I thought the hawks were a shoo in for the division. Now, I honestly would take SF to win the division, especially since they get a rematch at home.
#37 by formido // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:34pm
Well, considering Seattle's starting tackles and Percy Harvin will be back by then, and when their starting tackles were playing their offensive DVOA was much higher, and SF's remaining schedule is harder, I wouldn't start polishing that division title for SF just yet.
#38 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:49pm
There were several games that were just awful, but I wouldn't say they haven't been great most of the year. They were great against #2 defense Arizona and #9 defense Indy and good in DVOA terms against Carolina and Tennessee. The fumbles have been a big issue, so at least that didn't happen last night.
#54 by Karl Cuba // Oct 29, 2013 - 9:22pm
While I hate to threaten your attempts to rile the FOMBC, Seattle are at approximately 9% on the road, not exactly outstanding. They're over 60% at home though, if they get homefield they should be massive favourites to make the Superbowl... which isn't being held at the Clink.
Have FO ever looked to see who has the biggest ever home/road difference? 50% seems pretty massive.
#55 by dmstorm22 // Oct 29, 2013 - 9:28pm
Assuming the Packers clear away from Detroit and the Seahawks stay above the 49ers, the race for the #1 seed in the NFC will be huge. Both the Saints and Seahawks have what seem to be huge advantages at Home. I can't see either team losing a home playoff game. The Packers, I guess, can travel well, but just avoiding trips to those two places is a huge gain.
Should be a fun race in the NFC, where the only other mystery seems to be who between Detroit & Carolina gets the #6 seed, and what terrible team wins the NFC East.
#58 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 9:43pm
I'm certainly not claiming they've been great on the road, but rather, I feel like they've been inconsistently underwhelming; I don't know if DVOA feels the same way.
Also, looking at the definition of FOMBC, it seems I'm actually doing the opposite of that in that I'm amazed at their high DVOA ranking.
#49 by EricL // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:47pm
Also, they and the New York Giants are the only teams in the league to have played five road games to this point.
So, they're sitting at 7-1 with five home games remaining against TB, MIN, NO (Monday), ARI, and STL. Only one of those games should be close, but hey - that's why they play them.
Their three remaining road games are at ATL (10am), at SF (short week after NO game), and at NYG (10am).
#34 by Duff Soviet Union // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:27pm
Yeah, of course Seattle's defense improved. They held St Louis to no touchdowns, 2 interceptions and a fumble (recovered by the Rams)despite their offense leaving them with pretty short fields a lot of the night. The only time the Rams really got anything going was on their last drive where Seattle tossed a 4 down goal-line stand on them.
The other reason they improved was that they're getting credit for shutting down Sam Bradford (who's had a pretty solid year) when they actually shut down Kellen Clemens. But hey, pretty much every defense has played a back up QB at some point this year, so don't hate on them too much for that.
The real shock is that their offense didn't drop more. I know they didn't turn the ball over, but that was brutal. 135 total yards and 80 of them on one play. Woof.
#73 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:44pm
True, the result was pretty good. I think it's because I saw them perform significantly worse than the stats indicate. Both interceptions were inaccurate balls thrown to wide-open receivers, and of course St. Louis missed a makeable field goal that would've changed the entire complexion of the game. They looked like how they looked last year, when they would give up a lot of yards, especially on the ground, but make up for it with turnovers, instead of how they had looked this year, when they would give up very few yards, including on the ground, and get turnovers on top of it.
#136 by DJG (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 5:25pm
Watching the game I too felt the Seahawks D wasn't playing as well as they have been this year, but upon reflection I think I was being fooled by the bad position the putrid offense kept putting them. The D only gave up 4.3 yards-per-play, which is fewer than the season average for all 32 teams this year. As for the interceptions, only on one of them was the intended receiver open, on the other one he was well-covered and ran the wrong route. There was an open guy on the play, but you could probably say that about most interceptions. Forcing the QB to make the wrong read and capitalizing on it is a part of defense (and of course it helps when said QB is lousy). As for the field goal it was basically a coin toss (Zuerlein is exactly 50% in his career from 50+), so no surprise he missed it. In retrospect -- 96-yard drive to make it close aside -- this was actually a terrific game for the Hawks' D.
(For Seahawks commentary and analysis: Jim Zorn's Lemma.)
#137 by DJG (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 5:35pm
As bad an offensive performance as we've seen in the Russell Wilson era. Although, the 80-yard play was a direct result of the eight-in-the-box, aggressive fronts the Rams played all night, so it doesn't make sense to isolate it from the overall total. The shame (from the perspective of a Seahawks fan) is that the Seahawks couldn't (didn't try to?) hit a few more of these one-on-one big passes to force the Rams to lighten up on the line.
(For Seahawks commentary and analysis: Jim Zorn's Lemma.)
#28 by ebongreen // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:15pm
I think Chicago is a mirage as well - especially without Cutler - but the proof is in the playing. Give it seven days, and we'll see. :)
IMO The NFC North will come down to the Packers and Lions. With all respect to Stafford and Megatron, I'm confident the Packers have the edge in that matchup. They may not win at Det on Turkey Day, but even with a split I think Green Bay is likely to win the division. At some point the awful injury luck seems likely to abate... right?
#33 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:25pm
I agree the Packers are the superior team....but, have you looked at the Lions remaining schedule? Mostly it's Cakewalk City. They get to play the Bears without Briggs and Cutler, and then a bunch of dumpster fires. The only tough games are Green Bay and maybe Baltimore (and both of those are at home).
The Lions are so inconsistent that you can count on them to blow at least one or two winnable games, but I still think the Packers need to win the Thanksgiving Game to lock down the division. Otherwise they sweat it out till the end.
#47 by DisplacedPackerFan // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:32pm
Have you looked that Packers remaining schedule? They also get the Bears without Briggs and Cutler (the 20.9% DVOA is not to be trusted). Then it's Philly (-12.4%), then the New York Football Dumpster (-25.35), then Minnesota and whoever they might have at QB (-13.6%). They finally get a tough game, Turkey day in Detroit (7.7%), followed by the train wreck that is Atlanta (-7.7%), after that there is another possible real opponent in Dallas (11.9%), then it's Pittsburgh (-4.1%) and Chicago again. So they should end up 12-4 at worst and have a good shot at 14-2. Anything can happen of course, but the two Chicago games make their future schedule look harder than it is.
Detroit has an easier schedule with Tampa and Baltimore (instead of Dallas and another Chicago) but it's not much different than what GB has (other than of course GB and not Det).
It's possible if GB loses in Det they both end up 13-3, but GB should be the favorite in every game they have left, unless I'm really mistaken about Chicago and the issues they have been having. Det should be favored in every game expect vs GB.
#111 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Oct 30, 2013 - 10:08am
All of that means that for the Packers, winning vs. losing on Turkey Day is the difference between being able to rest their starters in week 17 (or maybe even competing for a first round bye), vs needing to win out to stay ahead of the Lions in the division. Granted, you rightly point out that the Packers' schedule is only marginally harder than the Lions'.
#41 by TomC // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:12pm
Chicago climbs two spots to sixth, even on a bye week, although DVOA of course doesn't take into account the effect of injuries (or McCowns) on a team's future peformance.
I am fairly confident that if you shell out the money for FO's premium picks this weekend, they will not be taking the Bears straight up.
(Speaking of which, I was curious what that line was, and it's Packers by 11.5! That's got to be some kind of record for teams with effectively identical DVOA.)
#5 by DejSpin (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 5:52pm
So the Packers absolutely throttle the Vikings and drop 4 spots and 3 percentage points in DVOA. And the Green Bay offense gains barely half a percentage point despite scoring on EVERY DRIVE of the game. Those must be some killer opponent adjustments for the Vikings. Just imagine how far they would have dropped if the punter had actually participated in the game.
#10 by Nick Wells (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:05pm
Green Bay's defense gave up two garbage time td's at the end of the game and one before the half that was the result of a phantom pass interference call. For the game's other 53 minutes, during which the game was decided, the Vikings offense did nothing.
#14 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:09pm
Well, yes, if you take out all the TDs a team scored (and DVOA doesn't know about phantom pass interference calls), they certainly look worse. Also, I wouldn't call a 11-play 62-yard drive in the first half nothing.
#63 by Paul M (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 10:21pm
Please,Perfundle, stop trying. Our eyes can see.... A huge flaw in this metric continues to be assigning equal value to garbage time TDS in an era when players are legitimately conscious of injury and just might avoid making certain plays when their team is 3-4 TDS ahead in the final 5 minutes that they would make any other time... It is a laughable result when the Packers can simply destroy Minnesota in-between a kickoff return (matched by a 93 yard Packer punt return later in the game) and two garbage touchdowns and yet their overall season performance can decline... Don't try to defend to indefensible...
#74 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:48pm
That's what was said for the majority of 2011's blowouts too. In the end, the defense was as bad as advertised. Why is it that the elite defensive teams can consistently get huge blowouts, like Chicago and Denver last year? Or, to use a particularly illuminating example, the 2010 Packers? Let's see, 34-7 against Buffalo, 0 second-half points; 45-7 against Dallas, 0 second-half points; 31-3 against Minnesota, 0 second-half points; 34-16 against SF, 3 second-half points; 45-17 against NYG, 7 second-half points; 48-21 against Atlanta, 7 second-half points.
Shouldn't a mediocre defensive team use garbage time to practice their technique instead of coasting? It's a bad habit that McCarthy and Capers are enabling, and I fear it's going to burn them again in the playoffs; the players on defense should get into the routine of playing hard the entire game.
#78 by Paul M (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 12:06am
well, at the risk of going into dirty laundry, I'm not sure one game vs the Giants proves much of anything about 2011. The offensive coordinator's son died during that week, and as a result he was not part of any game planning. The QB had been benched the week before and was nowhere near as sharp in that game as he had been all season, particularly vis-a-vis a certain Number 85, Greg Jennings, who had missed the four previous games due to injury. The offense was, in a word, strangely ineffective that night. The defense made one unpardonable sin-- allowing a Hail Mary TD at the end of the half (a precursor of the play that, more than any other, doomed their 2012 season)-- but was not the biggest cause of that defeat.. But we'll see, i guess-- when Matthews, Perry and Brad Jones all return-- just how good this year's Packer defense is...
#127 by Perfundle // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:08pm
Although Rodgers was certainly less accurate, the biggest problem of all was the three lost fumbles by the least-fumbling team in the NFL. Anyway, the Packers' defense played as badly as they did the first time around against the Giants, so my point was that they were as bad as they were in the regular season, and when the turnovers dried up (GB had been forcing the most turnovers per drive), they would need near-flawless execution from the offense every game, and you can't rely on that. I mean, saying that a defense that gives up that many points is not the biggest cause of the defeat is quite revealing how little faith the fans had in them that year, and how much they needed the offense to rescue them; who knows if the defensive players had had that mentality too.
#86 by Nick Wells (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:59am
I agree that it's a concern. Capers said as much after the game. But, DVOA would have us believe that this was a closely contested game, when it wasn't. I agree with the post above that it seems you're defending DVOA by pointing out its limitations. Like all other metrics, DVOA is simply data, meaningless without context and analysis.
#128 by Perfundle // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:13pm
It's possible that it's a limitation of DVOA, but given past history, it could also be DVOA revealing a hidden truth about a team. DVOA's biggest limitation is in its inability to account for playing getting injured and coming back, and I feel the garbage time issue is nowhere near as bad. I mean, I was just as skeptical about this in years past, but I saw these bad garbage time teams continually go belly-up in the playoffs from bad defensive play.
#72 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:37pm
I'll add that while you see a phantom pass interference call, I saw a drive that had 6 out of 8 successful plays by DVOA other than that penalty. So how can they practice defending 2-minute drills like this? How about in the second half of blowouts, when the opponents are forced into one 2-minute drill after another? Minnesota scored both of their fourth-quarter TDs in less than two minutes. I can't help but feel that they were treating the second half of the Cincinnati game the same way when they went up 30-14, and what happens? A 65-yard TD drive in less than two minutes and a 95-yard TD drive in less than three minutes.
#16 by Perfundle // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:16pm
You make it sound like they would have gotten nothing were it not for that call. It would've been 4th-and-1 from Green Bay's 40, and they surely would've gone for it, and probably get at least a field goal. Also, even with the penalty, Green Bay could've stopped them afterwards, and they didn't.
#53 by Treima // Oct 29, 2013 - 9:14pm
Green Bay is clearly ranked too low because they SMOTHERED the Vikings, and gifted them 31 points as a courtesy! Rankings based on number of awkward State Farm commercials is way better than this. Cutler should stop cruising for discount double-checks on sports medicine!
#95 by AnonA (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 5:00am
I have to agree that GB absolutely handled the Vikes in this game. Every1 knew that wasn't a PI. Vikes probably go for it but still who knows what happens if it weren't for that call.
Basically after that the offense did nothing until GB went into prevent and basically allowed Ponder to walk in for a TD plus gave up another TD. In the end those TD's weren't going to matter.
With the amount of Injuries on this team I completely understand playing that soft on defense when the game is that far out of reach. Like someone said, DVOA can't understand that but Human's should be able to.
#139 by toolkien (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 5:59pm
But garbage time just isn't the defense mailing it in, it's the Packer offense taking its foot off the gas as well. If the Packers had really tried all throughout the game, the score would have been a 3 TD win without a whole lot of sweat. But they go into complete safe mode on offense and play soft as butter on D to let the time drain. The problem with any metric system is that it simply doesn't take that "inflection" into account like sarcasm being lost in a comment section post. The end result is the Packers are stronger than the DVOA accounts for. Of course it works both ways, because there are times when the Packers are worse than their DVOA ranking seems to have them to be. In the end, DVOA seems to be a lot more about yards as its frame of reference when yards matter less and less. The Vikings had one strong drive the entire game, the rest is out of context.
#147 by Perfundle // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:24pm
"play soft as butter on D to let the time drain"
Yep, the D really drained the time with the two TD drives that took less than 90 seconds. Oh, and the TD drive right before the half did the same.
"The problem with any metric system is that it simply doesn't take that "inflection" into account"
There was one that did: ESPN's QBR, with its weighted end-of-game performance (clutch, garbage time), and it got roundly criticized for it.
You have to ask yourself, if accounting for garbage time points is such an easy fix, why haven't they ever fixed it? Maybe they found that DVOA's predictive value got worse when they took it out, and I'd be inclined to believe that too.
#153 by toolkien (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 9:08pm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201310270min.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201310270cin.htm
Notice a whole lot of difference in the graphic of the chance of winning? Me neither.
#156 by DisplacedPackerFan // Oct 30, 2013 - 10:38pm
DVOA is not really measuring the probability of winning the game, during the game. If you use it to predict it is more the probability that a play will be a success. In the aggregate you can use that predict who will win a game in the future, or explain what happened in a game in the past. The points the Packers gave up late, which they've done this year already which lead to a fumble costing them the game, indicate it's likely to happen again, regardless of opponent.
Discounting garbage time has been tried, it made DVOA worse at predicting wins and losses. While we don't know the play sets, garbage time is compared to other garbage time, so it is already discounted some.
Besides it wasn't just the two TD's at the end of the game that messed up the numbers for the Packers. Their run defense was awful over the small number of plays that the Vikings actually ran on. 52%, way worse than any other game this year. Peterson who didn't really play much late, averaged 4.6 yards per carry, and gashed them for a few first downs. Ponder had some scrambles early that hurt them too.
The game wasn't really close, but it was still a one score at half and Minn had two decent drives, you can argue the PI all you want. Also while the GB offense was great on 3rd downs, it also ended up in 3rd down situations a lot, if you are using a per play metric to predict success, getting into 3rd down situations all the time is less likely to be successful than getting the next first down before then.
The numbers still have them as a Super Bowl contender, with only Seattle and New Orleans (both 1 loss teams) more likely to win it out of the NFC. The past has shown that a game like this can be predictive, and it's also shown that sometimes crap happens. We'll know next week, but I really don't think the numbers, when used descriptively, are all that off for this game.
#182 by Perfundle // Oct 31, 2013 - 1:28pm
Good point on continually being in 3rd down. I had considered that myself as a reason why Green Bay's offense didn't go up more in DVOA, and more importantly, didn't feel that dominant when I was watching them. For as good an offense as they are, they still are having any amount of trouble in the red zone. They're only getting TDs 50% of the time this year (good for 20th), and they were 2-4 against Minnesota.
#149 by Jerry // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:40pm
Aaron has written in the past about how he's looked at garbage time and made some adjustments to reflect the different strategies involved at that point, but that the results are still predictive enough that they're worth including.
#6 by theslothook // Oct 29, 2013 - 5:56pm
The tom brady thing is really just stunning. I expected a decline in his numbers, but this has been unfathomable. I have charted 2 of NE's games and watched 4 of them and in all 4, brady's inaccuracy just leaps off the screen. These are throws he's ad time to make and they've just sailed, or been behind, or underthrown. Anyone have any particular conjecture to why? Maybe its a receivers thing, but 06 brady was never like this. Nor was 09 brady coming off a knee injury and lost year. This is really just unbelievable. Part of me wonders if its just not an extreme string of bad luck with his timing that eventually will get sorted out.
#15 by Otis Taylor89 // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:14pm
The lack of a Woodhead/Vareen to throw to/pick up blitzes on 3rd down has to have a huge affect. He always had that guy, (Faulk, Woodhead, Vareen) with great hands and a nose for the 1st down marker. Vareen won't be back until week 11.
#21 by bernie (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:47pm
I haven't watched the patriots much this year, so I haven't seen Brady's throws (other than hilights/lowlights) but if his hand is as injured as it looks (the last photo I saw looked like he hand a water balloon hanging out of his sleeve) surely that's going to effect his accuracy. I have no idea of course how true any of that is, but I can't think of a reason for his play to just fall apart overnight the way it has.
#71 by RickD // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:30pm
Actually his accuracy has been all over the place, at least if we look at his completion percentage.
Week 1: @BUF 55.8%
Week 2: NYJ 48.7%
Week 3: TB 69.4%
Week 4: @ATL 64.5%
Week 5: @CIN 47.4%
Week 6: NO 58.1%
Week 7: @NYJ 47.8%
Week 8: MIA 59.1%
The worst games were against the tough defenses (Jets and Bengals).
Of course those numbers don't indicate just how bad some of the errant passes have been.
My hope, as a Pats fan, is that he manages to survive the Steelers game somehow and heal over the bye week.
#30 by MJK // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:21pm
One factor in the blame pie for Brady that isn't mentioned is the O-Line. Yes, he's been off from time to time when he has had plenty of time, but there have also been times (All of the Bengals game, the first half of the New Orleans, Atlanta, and Miami games, for example) when the Pats' pass protection has been horrible. The problem, strangely, seems to be LG (Logan Mankins). I guess it's possible that Mankins is playing OK and it's the lack of a good blitz pickup back that's making it look like the guard's fault, but teams are definitely getting interior pressure on the left side of the line against the Pats.
Some of Brady's struggles (probably not all, but certainly some) might be that he's getting gun-shy and is hurrying his throws...sometimes because he's forced to, and sometimes when he has had plenty of time but maybe doesn't realize it, because he's had so many blind side quick sacks this year.
#32 by theslothook // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:24pm
In the games I charted, Cincy game was really a poor performance, but the NO game was just average I'd say. That said, Pff rated both his tackles really highly. And to be honest, saying hes been inaccurate is really not doing it justice. I'm saying, there are routine throws I've seen brady make for years that are just flat out being missed. If it were because of horrid pass protection or good coverage, that would be one thing, but its been a series of persistently inaccurate throws across the entire field. That's why I figure eventually, he's going to get this fixed. Its not like he's suddenly turned into Josh Freeman.
#67 by RickD // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:21pm
But it's the same O-line that Brady had last season.
Whatever the issue is with the passing game, it's something that has changed since last season. Which means it's either the receiving corps, an injury, or a dramatic age-related decline in ability. I think it's a combination of the first two.
Which isn't to say that the pass blocking has been all that great. But the Falcons didn't sack him once. I think the Bengals were the most disruptive. This is an ongoing problem that the Pats have had against teams with very physical defensive lines (Bengals, 49ers, Seahawks, Ravens and Jets to some extent). And the problem's in the middle, not at the tackles (at least, not before Vollmer broke his leg). Mankins in particular isn't quite up to the task of handling the best interior linemen.
#76 by Anonymousse (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 12:01am
The line hasn't been great, but Brady is making them look worse than they are.
He just looks bad in every facet of the game. He's making poor decisions, and making them slowly. Teams are blitzing frequently because hes not making his progressions and hitting his hot reads.
He's just not a good NFL QB right now.
#52 by MaineMan (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 9:12pm
Most of Brady's past success, IMHO, had been built on quick reads and quick, short-to-intermediate throws to his first or second read - situations in which his mechanics (and consequent accuracy) had been mostly a matter of muscle memory. In 2013, with a brand new cast of targets, he's most often had to go deeper into his progressions, hang onto the ball just a tad longer, and be more deliberate on his throws, which has not served him well even in the past, mechanics-wise, especially now without his weekly phone conferences with Tom Martinez.
Also, though I have no statistical evidence for this, I believe a somewhat larger percentage of his attempts have been toward the boundaries and further down field than in the past - somewhat slower-developing plays that result in Brady hanging on to the ball just a tad longer and a more deliberate delivery.
Short version: when has time to think about the throw, he overthinks it. I believe he can and will adapt successfully and has already begun to show some signs of coming around. It seemed to me that his accuracy had improved a bit in the Miami game.
#64 by Paddy Pat // Oct 29, 2013 - 10:49pm
I think that the lack of a third down back/outlet receiver option is a big part of his poor numbers and plays a significant role in the sack figures. That really doesn't explain lack of accuracy though. I haven't been charting, but I've noticed a lot of poor ball placement even on throws that appeared to be within range of his target. He throws many balls too high, and then many that are uncomfortably behind his targets or at their knees. This is new for Brady. I can understand the complete misses that we were seeing against Buffalo or New York (in the first game) where it was clear that he and his receivers were mis-communicating. The poor ball placement is not a feature of Tom's game that I can recall at any previous time in his career. He has always had a crisp release with good ball placement, usually leading his receivers in the direction he wants them to head to. I think he looked like himself through the first few games of the year and has fallen off a cliff since then. The rally in the first game of the year is not something that he would be capable of now, for example. That suggests an injury to me and one that happened around week 3-4. The hand might be it, although I haven't seen that mentioned until very recently. He could also have something nebulously wrong with his shoulder again... Very hard to say, but something is just plain wrong with him. One really wonders why they don't play Mallett. Players have backups for a reason.
#80 by PaddyPat // Oct 30, 2013 - 12:21am
I really think there was a change during the year that has been masked by overall poor team performance. Early, it really was a lot of communication issues with the receivers. Brady was accurate throwing to Amendola in week 1, and looked good hitting Vereen and Edelman. Things were rougher in week 2, but a lot of that was the lack of his 2 top targets from week 1. That was the game everyone remembers with Brady yelling at everyone. Week 3 he looked like himself--70 percent completion, 2 tds, one pick, 6+ change yards a pass. It was vintage Brady--2004-6 stuff. What you might expect from a smart, accurate qb with no receivers. He had a nice game against Atlanta that even looked like the 2009-12 Brady. 10+ yards a pass, 64 completion etc. Then he tanked the following week at Cincinnati and hasn't recovered. Low completion percentages, inaccurate passes, etc.
#90 by theslothook // Oct 30, 2013 - 2:21am
You know one thing that I hear that just baffles me. I keep hearing how tom brady is fine because they pats are 6-2. I mean, wow, I guess defenses will never be given credit ever in this world, unless their qbs are trent dilfer quality.
#123 by RickD // Oct 30, 2013 - 12:49pm
Now we're well into the realm of fiction.
If you've never seen him yell at a teammate before, that's your issue. But he's done it. He hasn't done it much in recent years, because he always had Welker to throw to. And Gronk, Hernandez, and Randy Moss.
He yells at people who make stupid mistakes like running the wrong route.
"Screaming" seems a bit much.
#8 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:00pm
"The three worst 6-2 teams in DVOA history were all the Detroit Lions. They had -17.1% DVOA in 2007 (finished 7-9), -10.9% DVOA in 1993 (finished 10-6), and -8.0% DVOA in 1991 (finished 12-4)."
What about the 1999 team? They started 6-2, then finished 8-8. I remember them being on the list of worst teams to make the playoffs in the DVOA era. They predictably got hammered by Washington in the Wildcard round.
It's a fitting week to point out the fact that the '91 team, despite their hidden mediocrity, drubbed a superior Dallas team in the divisional round. Combine that with the 1994 week 3 Monday Night overtime upset, the 2011 week 4 comeback, and the game this past sunday, four of my most pleasant memories as a Lions fan have been against Dallas. It's getting to the point where I wish they could move to the NFC North.
#140 by Aaron Schatz // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:03pm
The 1999 Lions are a strange case. They started slow, and had -12.0% DVOA (22nd) at 2-2. Then they got hot and won four straight. That, and the increasing importance of opponent adjustments, had them all the way up to 15.9% DVOA (8th) at 6-2 after Week 9. Then they fell apart again, going 2-6 over the rest of the year and finishing with 3.0% DVOA (18th).
#167 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Oct 31, 2013 - 10:24am
Thanks Aaron.
Yea, that was a strange season. Nobody had any expectations for the Barry Sanders-less Lions that year. Yet they inexplicably defeated the Packers and Rams in first half of the year (I still can't explain how Gus Frerrotte out-dueled Kurt Warner). Then with everyone expecting great things from them, they just as inexplicably collapsed.
#19 by dmstorm22 // Oct 29, 2013 - 6:35pm
Because it happened this upcoming week, Super Bowl 41.5 seems to have been worth the hype. Two of the 4 best teams through 8 weeks in the DVOA era. My God, and how great it was for the two teams to play a great game. Looking back, both teams kind of peaked then. The Colts were the first team to even challenge New England that year, but their season was ruined long term when Marvin went down two weeks earlier and Freeney went down the next week (and a bunch of other people would go in and out of the lineup, making Craphonso Thorpe an active NFL receiver). The Eff-You Patriots kind of died with that game, as they were challenged for the firs time. They would show up two more times (the next week - 56-10 over Buffalo - and the Anthony Smith game), but they were never really the same after being challenged that first time.
Anyway, a nice trip down memory lane for one of the biggest regular season games of my lifetime.
As for the rankings, surprising NO is still relatively low. I guess I just imagine their offense having being better than it was, but I guess their run game is rather bad. The Patriots is shocking, and I feel like they'll end around 11-5, but you just never know with Belichick. @CAR on MNF in two weeks will be a good test. The Broncos defense in that 38-0 run looked downright scary for the first time all year. If they play like that (granted, it was against Washington), the Broncos may just keep their spot in the Top-10 overall DVOA even if their offense does fall a bit more.
#65 by RickD // Oct 29, 2013 - 10:59pm
There's a belief that he injured his hand on the first play of the second half of the Jets' game, on the sack/fumble. His next pass was an awful pick six.
He was much better in the first half of the Jets' game than the second half.
#122 by RickD // Oct 30, 2013 - 12:45pm
He hasn't looked "terrible all season."
He's had bad moments all season. But he also beat the Saints with a last-minute scoring drive. And he looked good against the Falcons and Bucs.
And really, in the first two weeks, his receivers were dropping passes left and right.
The receivers have gotten better, but he's gotten worse.
#138 by Cythammer (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 5:55pm
He hasn't been Gabbert-level terrible, of course, but he's been very bad by his own standards. He's already had multiple games where he completed less than half his passes. That's shocking. That drive against the Saints is still only one drive, and it was the third attempt at a last minute rally, the first two of which had been miserable failures.
#24 by Niners! (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 7:02pm
Fascinating fact: last week, the Niners had the 28th toughest Future Schedule. This week, they have the 9th toughest Future Schedule; a jump of 19 spots, just from playing Jacksonville. Yes, Jacksonville is that bad; their future opponents have the 25th, 27th, 28th, 30th, 31st, and 32nd toughest future schedules (they themselves have the 29th)!
#101 by CBPodge // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:50am
That is absolutely fantastic. The past schedules aren't quite as good: 32nd, 16th, 28th, 15th, 17th, 31st, 30th, 27th.
16th is Oakland, who has played Denver, Indy and KC.
15th is Indy, who has played San Fran, Seattle and Denver.
17th is St Louis, who has played San Francisco, Carolina and Seattle.
Basically, playing one game against the Jags is only properly cancelled out by playing games against three good teams.
#109 by Ryan D. // Oct 30, 2013 - 9:32am
If Deangelo Williams hadn't fumbled inside the 10 late in the 4th quarter against Seattle in week 1, and if EJ Manuel hadn't taken the Bills 80 yards down the field in the final minute in week 2, the Panthers could be 6-1 right now, tied for the best record in the NFC. They are two plays away from 6-1.
#39 by wiesengrund // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:07pm
However, only 13 teams since 1989 have made it to 8-0, and out of those teams, the Chiefs come out near the bottom.
While their play this year does deserve any omitted mention that can be concocted, I still think last year's Falcons are missing in that list.
#40 by Coop (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:11pm
Interesting, and (to a Browns fan) rather disturbing, to see the Browns' defense rated so low. I'm not arguing with the rating, I'm just disappointed. The Browns poured a lot of money into their defense in the offseason, as well as selecting defensive players with their first two draft picks this past spring, and to hear the Cleveland media guys tell it, the Browns' defense has been tough while the Browns' offense has been so pathetic that it's holding the team back. Well, DVOA has the Browns' offense rated 23rd, and the defense also rated 23rd. In other words, the team sucks equally on both sides of the ball. Man, if our defense is really as bad as our offense, that light at the end of the tunnel isn't a ray of hope, it's just an oncoming train. It's pretty discouraging to see that after all these years of lousy play, the team still isn't making any progress, even on the side of the ball that has supposedly been shored up with high draft picks and expensive free agents.
#45 by herewegobrowni… (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:25pm
The D has been on a steady decline since being ranked 8th a few weeks ago.
The O has trended slightly up, and may do so in a more pronounced way in the near future, as I don't think this accounts for how Campbell will (hopefully) play every snap on O for the rest of the year.
#83 by 3Monkies (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:25am
This is the first time I have watched the Browns and they look like they are a QB away from being pretty good. That call against Joe Thomas was horrendous and a typical call that benefits a lucky team like the Chiefs. Joe Hayden is a great player.
#150 by herewegobrowni… (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:44pm
JT has been getting a lot more false start/etc. penalties recently and may start not making Pro Bowls soon. He had some disappointing blemishes on an otherwise strong game by the OL (really hoping that Mack stays.)
Haden will finally make his first Pro Bowl (would have made it last year if not for the suspension.)
#44 by TomC // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:18pm
I think it's worth pointing out that there is a clump of nearly indistinguishable (according to DVOA) teams from #4 to #10, so the Chiefs' dropping from 4 to 10 is nowhere near as significant as it sounds, and their ranking this week is not so much #10 as "not as good as DEN/SEA/IND but much better than most."
#51 by Gaucho (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 8:59pm
THE NEW YROK FOOLTABL GANTIS is clearly ranked TOO LOW because WE ARE IN A HOT SRTAEK AND WE ARE DISVOINIAL CONDNTERES! MEASUTING GTUS, SWAGGGAER, CLUTTCHNES AND TRATIDION is way better than this. WERE GNNOA RUN THE TBALE!!!
#92 by Bobman // Oct 30, 2013 - 2:33am
Yeah, I thought that seemed a bit steep.
As a Colts fan I was always used to seeing the Est Wins column about two games below their actual record when they were 6-0, 8-0, 9-0, etc. Right now they're actually below the estimated wins, suggesting they're better than their record. Whoo-hoo! Bring on that 32nd ranked closing schedule!
#62 by Paul M (not verified) // Oct 29, 2013 - 10:16pm
I can only shake my head and laugh. First at another in a ceaseless series of extended entries concerning a fairly mediocre team based in Massachusetts. Patriots Outsiders hums on and on and on... the second is the drop in DVOA of a team playing on the road that led 41-17 with 5 minutes left in the game-- boy those garbage time Viking touchdowns sure impressed me a lot!! I'll just watch the games, and forget these stats, because they simply can not be trusted...
#70 by coboney // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:28pm
To help Paul out here I decided to do it for him...
Patriots is clearly ranked Too High because patriots are mediocre and Aaron is a Pats fan. Watching games and ignoring stats for clutchness is way better than this. Aaron and stats suck, packs are the best team in the league cause they beat Christian Ponder!
#89 by theslothook // Oct 30, 2013 - 2:13am
You know, they are discussed by many people(including by me - a colts fan) because they are interesting at the moment. Mentioning how good the broncos are or the packers are feels like its stating the obvious(which it is) much like stating Jacksonville being terrible is a waste of time. Personally, the tom brady thing fascinates me because from a football theory standpoint, its fun to opine about various possibilities. Sorry we don't all devout all our entries towards touting the greatness of aaron rodgers,
#129 by Go pats (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:25pm
yes Pats suck, Packers are the greatest NFL team since sliced bread and Rodgers is the greatest QB to ever step on the field yada yada yada. Didn't you predict last year or the year before that the Packers were so great that they would win the next 5 consecutive Super Bowls becasue no one would stand in their path??? How's that working out for you by the way?
#144 by Aaron Schatz // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:12pm
I just wanted to point out that if I write about how the Patriots are dominant, I get criticized, and if I write about how the Pats are not as good as their record and their pretty boy quarterback is having an awful year, I also get criticized. I can't win.
Also, I'm tired of writing about the Broncos and Jaguars at this point. I had to write about someone else.
#166 by Aaron Schatz // Oct 31, 2013 - 10:12am
Purds, can you send us the full comment you tried to post? That might help us to fix the spam filter so it isn't so troublesome. Also, I will tag you as a "star poster" so that the spam filter won't stop your comments in the future.
#69 by coboney // Oct 29, 2013 - 11:26pm
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS is clearly ranked TOO HIGH because Their offensive line is offensive and could be better replaced by a bunch of people chosen from the stands price is right style. RANDOM FAN POLLING and VICTORIES IN UK is way better than this. Birds all suck and it rains in seattle too much to be godo team relying on fake fan noise, Sanfrancisco is best team in division!!!
....
First time Actually doing that. Felt somewhat cathartic.
#82 by beargoggles // Oct 30, 2013 - 1:05am
That looked fun, I'm going to try it some time
As (apparently fellow) Niner fan, watching Rams and Texans blow games to Seahawks very frustrating. Division title unlikely even with win in revenge game. Injuring entire Seahawks offensive line + obnoxious Golden Tate way better than this.
#173 by Anonymous Hipp… (not verified) // Oct 31, 2013 - 12:29pm
Really? I'm surprised by that too. How can CIN-SF show up 1.9% of the time and CIN-NO be below 0.1% (since NO has significantly better odds to get to the Super Bowl). I thought it'd be a little above IND-NO since CIN has just a little better odds at the Super Bowl.
#177 by jimbohead // Oct 31, 2013 - 12:55pm
Monte Carlo is like that. Even if they're running 10,000 simulations, looking for the model to correctly differentiate between 0-5% likelihood is a fruitless endeavor. But it's definitely the appropriate model for this point in the season! Can you imagine trying to Markov chain analysis this far out from the superbowl? yikes.
#152 by herewegobrowni… (not verified) // Oct 30, 2013 - 6:47pm
I'm not sure what the record for biggest favorite line is for the Browns since the return, but this one will be up there.
The game feels like it could be like the 2011 Browns/Rams game, though--one in which they were favored against a clearly inferior opponent but found a very Browns-like way to lose.