Bengals Historically Low by DVOA
NFL Conference Championship - As usual after the conference championship games, we're not going to bother with the full 32-team table of weighted DVOA ratings, since there are only two teams left and most teams haven't played for three weeks. We'll just take a quick look at both teams.
Cincinnati sat its starters in Week 18 so I'm going to show you ratings here for the Bengals both with and without that game included.
| TOT | Rk | OFF | Rk | DEF | Rk | ST | Rk | |
| LAR weighted | 32.2% | 2 | 5.3% | 11 | -18.4% | 3 | 8.4% | 1 |
| CIN weighted | 10.9% | 11 | 5.5% | 10 | 1.5% | 23 | 6.9% | 3 |
| CIN weighted (No Week 18) | 15.0% | 9 | 8.9% | 9 | 0.7% | 21 | 6.9% | 3 |
| LAR total | 27.1% | 3 | 11.5% | 7 | -12.2% | 4 | 3.4% | 5 |
| CIN total | 4.2% | 15 | 1.7% | 17 | 1.2% | 18 | 3.7% | 4 |
| CIN total (No Week 18) | 5.9% | 13 | 3.1% | 15 | 0.8% | 17 | 3.6% | 4 |
Yes, Dallas is still technically the No. 1 team in weighted DVOA for the season, even if we include the playoffs -- that's what happens when you have just one mediocre game and then two games off -- while Buffalo and Dallas are both higher than the Rams in total DVOA for the season including the playoffs.
Next, here are one-game ratings for the conference championships.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whether on Twitter or in this morning's Audibles at the Line, you may have seen that Cincinnati has one of the lowest DVOA ratings ever for a Super Bowl team. Let's start with the list of the worst regular-season teams to make the Super Bowl according to DVOA, since 1983. Cincinnati is third on this list, although the Bengals would be fourth if we removed the Week 18 game where they sat starters. Remember that the 1987 Washington numbers do not include the strikebreaker games.
| Lowest Regular-Season DVOA for Super Bowl Teams, 1983-2021 |
|||||
| Year | Team | DVOA | Rk | W-L | SB Result |
| 2008 | ARI | -4.0% | 21 | 9-7 | Lost |
| 2003 | CAR | -0.2% | 16 | 11-5 | Lost |
| 2021 | CIN | 0.0% | 17 | 10-7 | -- |
| 2007 | NYG | 1.4% | 15 | 10-6 | Won |
| 1987 | WAS | 6.7% | 8 | 8-4 | Won |
| 2011 | NYG | 7.3% | 12 | 9-7 | Won |
| 2001 | NE | 7.7% | 11 | 11-5 | Won |
| 1993 | BUF | 7.8% | 13 | 12-4 | Lost |
| 2000 | NYG | 8.4% | 11 | 12-4 | Lost |
| 1996 | NE | 8.8% | 10 | 11-5 | Lost |
That list demonstrates how the Bengals still have a good chance of winning the game despite having a lower rating than the Rams. Notice that the two lowest teams lost very close Super Bowls in the final minute, and the next four teams all won their games.
The Bengals look better if we use weighted DVOA instead of total DVOA and include their playoff games as well as the regular season. The Bengals were definitely better in the second half of the season, with their offense improving from -6.1% (23rd) in Weeks 1-9 to 9.3% (10th) in Weeks 10-18 while the defense improved from 5.3% (22nd) to 0.3% (20th). The Bengals also add on three positive playoff games, although none of their playoff wins had higher than this week's 33% DVOA for the single games.
Looking at weighted DVOA entering the Super Bowl, the Bengals are the seventh-lowest team since 1983 instead of third lowest. Again, the Bengals would look better if we removed the Week 18 game where they sat starters, but their overall rank wouldn't change because to be fair we would also want to remove the game and a half where the 2009 Colts (who rank eighth) sat starters as well. There are 10 teams since 1983 with weighted DVOA under 20% entering the Super Bowl. Here they are along with their regular-season ratings and Super Bowl results:
| Lowest Weighted DVOA Entering Super Bowl, 1983-2021 | |||||||
| Year | Team | Reg-Season DVOA |
Rk | W-L | WEI DVOA before SB |
Rk | SB Result |
| 2008 | ARI | -4.0% | 21 | 9-7 | 0.5% | 18 | Lost |
| 1994 | SD | 10.3% | 7 | 11-5 | 5.7% | 10 | Lost |
| 1986 | DEN | 19.0% | 5 | 11-5 | 7.0% | 11 | Lost |
| 1987 | WAS | 6.7% | 8 | 8-4 | 7.6% | 10 | Won |
| 1993 | BUF | 7.8% | 13 | 12-4 | 9.0% | 9 | Lost |
| 2006 | CHI | 24.0% | 5 | 13-3 | 10.3% | 11 | Lost |
| 2021 | CIN | 0.0% | 17 | 10-7 | 10.9% | 11 | -- |
| 2009 | IND | 17.0% | 8 | 14-2 | 13.1% | 13 | Lost |
| 2003 | CAR | -0.2% | 16 | 11-5 | 15.2% | 9 | Lost |
| 2011 | NYG | 7.3% | 12 | 9-7 | 17.1% | 10 | Won |
A few notes on the teams that are even lower than the 2021 Bengals:
- The 2008 Cardinals had a strong playoff run but had finished the regular season 2-4 in their final six games including losses of 35-14 to Minnesota, 48-20 to Philadelphia, and 47-7 to the Matt Cassel Patriots.
- The 1994 Chargers started 6-0 and then finished 6-5. They also had negative DVOA for their 22-21 divisional victory over Miami.
- The 1986 Broncos started 6-0 and lost four of their final seven games, including losses of 37-10 to the Chiefs and 41-16 to the Seahawks. Their two playoff wins came by a combined eight points.
- The 2006 Bears also sat starters in their final regular-season game, like this year's Bengals and the 2009 Colts.
I had to spend this year jousting with a lot of Packers fans and Titans fans about how low those teams were in DVOA but I don't remember getting a lot of pushback from Cincinnati fans about the Bengals' low rating. And yet, they're the team that went on the postseason run. Football Outsiders was not alone in having the Bengals low this year in our ratings. Pro Football Reference's Simple Ratings System has them only 12th for this season. ESPN's FPI still has the Bengals only 13th.
The Rams are clear favorites for Super Bowl LVI, winning in 65.3% of our playoff odds simulations, but that still gives Cincinnati a 1-in-3 chance of taking home the Lombardi Trophy. The Super Bowl is far from a sure thing. Look for lots of preview content on Football Outsiders over the next two weeks.
Also, voting for the 19th annual Football Outsiders reader awards should start later this week, so look for that banner on our front page and make sure to get in your votes!
Comments
64 comments, Last at 06 Feb 2022, 11:20pm
#1 by Mike G. // Jan 31, 2022 - 3:36pm
These Bengals remind me a lot of the 2012 Ravens, who were forgettable for most of the season, then got a new offensive coordinator and Ray Lewis back right before the playoffs and went on a "nobody-believes-in-us" underdog run. Granted, there haven't been any such personnel changes for the Bengals, but I can point to Week 14 against San Francisco as the game that made me, as a fan, start believing in them as a potential contender. So, at the risk of cherry-picking, Aaron, I'm wondering if you could give us an isolated Bengals DVOA number for the seven games from Weeks 14-17 (not 18) plus their 3 playoff games. I'd like to see if the stats back up my hunch. Thanks in advance if you read this.
EDIT: I just took the average of the 7 weeks. It's 23.3%.
#2 by matu_72 // Jan 31, 2022 - 3:37pm
Going into the weekend it felt like 49ers-Rams would be a toss-up, and the game did end up looking really close. But to see that VOA for both teams come out to near zero all the way around is pretty crazy. What a game.
#9 by MJK // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:00pm
Don't worry. Even if the new expanded playoffs did result in blowouts and poor games this year, we'd still be stuck with it... because money.
I don't think the NFL feels it needs any justification for any of its actions.
#6 by oaktoon // Jan 31, 2022 - 5:45pm
"Like Everything/Everyone Else, DVOA Don't Know Sh_t"
Cincinnati beat the Chiefs twice in the last five weeks. They utterly outplayed Mahomes and Co. in the second half plus OT. They deserved to win. They could easily beat the Rams-- because what the experts and a metric device which tried to tell us at various points this season that the Bills might be a historically great team, that NE/TB/DALL were the best teams in the sport-- who won one playoff game between them, what they could not or would not say was:
No great teams. Playoffs are a crapshoot. Anybody can win. GB blocks well on one of a FG or Punt, and maybe they have just beaten Stafford and the Rams at Lambeau as they nearly always do, and they're in the SB. Buffalo orders up a squib kick and maybe it's them. The officials nullify the whistle TD and maybe the Raiders knock out the Bengals in the first week. And on and on.
Metrics are great because they get us thinking..often they present aspects of the game that are counterintuitive, or defy conventional wisdom. 4th down play selection has changed as a result (I'm pointing at you, Kyle Shanahan) But the attempt to confine it all, or then to be disdainful about the teams that win when they're not supposed to, is a fool's errand.
Go Joe Burrow. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
#16 by theslothook // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:44pm
I think you are attacking a strawman.
No modeler ever suggested they are 100 percent reflections of reality, especially in a world that is dynamic and the observables are hard to measure. At least, if nothing else, they are rigid in their logic which makes them consistent and moreover, testable versus some messiah who professes to know the objective truth.
And in the end, FO has never claimed their numbers mean so and so has no shot. It does, however, put a proper perspective on what we should be reasonably expecting from the teams we watch.
#21 by Tutenkharnage // Jan 31, 2022 - 7:05pm
Cincinnati beat the Chiefs at Arrowhead twice in the last five weeks.
Either you're the second poster I've had to point this out to in two days, or you're the same one and didn't get the memo the first time. The regular-season contest was played in Cincinnati, not Arrowhead.
#25 by jheidelberg // Jan 31, 2022 - 7:48pm
It is just one game. But one game is more of a crapshoot than at any time in NFL history. As the game has evolved, there are fewer and fewer possessions. Thus, when you look back and think of the Doomsday Defense, or the Steel Curtain, those teams were much less likely to be upset as the game was the best of many more possessions. Some games now have as few as 7 possessions per team.
Clearly a game of best of 14 possessions is much less random than a game of best of 7 possessions.
#28 by jheidelberg // Jan 31, 2022 - 8:08pm
1. The West Coast offense leads to more ball control offense, fewer long passes, fewer incomplete passes, fewer holding penalties, fewer sacks and turnovers.
2. Rule changes
a. All out of bounds plays used to stop the clock. Throw a square out after a touchback to start the game, and there was 14:54 remaining in the first quarter when the next play was run
b. The clock used to stop on all penalties
c. I am not sure about the play clock, but see the article below.
Here is an article on rule changes in 2008. They are intended to shorten the game, and have dramatically decrease the number of plays in a game. Yes we get less football than we used to.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/35981-2008-rule-changes-what-every-fan-needs-to-know
#31 by capnhook33 // Jan 31, 2022 - 8:14pm
Yup mostly this. Not any one thing but a culmination of a lot of things. All those rule changes and stylistically the west coast/air raid have made for no plays that stop a clock. In general you get 55-65 plays a game per team now and only 15-20 of those result in a clock stoppage, otherwise it's 40-45 seconds per play roughly.
#13 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:16pm
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/1985/regular
They were a +17% team.
It's just that unless you were the 1985 Dolphins, the Bears were going to annihilate you. The Pats, Giants, and Rams were all really good defenses combined with decent offenses and the Bears just murdered that kind of team. The Bears defense and ST outscored those three 23-10 in the playoffs.
The Rams actually did okay! They held Chicago to a season-low in yards, and forced a TO and 10 punts! It's just Chicago's defense did the same thing, but moreso.
#14 by Bob Smith // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:31pm
Yes but, that doesn't say a whole lot for those '85 Dolphins either-they lost to the '85 Patriots in the Conference Championship Game at home no less. But that really sums up Marino's career to an extent.
Dan played a very good game against those Bears in the Reg. Season and then played mediocre to bad against the Pats in the playoffs. He would do a similar thing 4 or 5 more times before he retired against the Bills, the Pats, and Denver.
#17 by oaktoon // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:46pm
First and only time to a) see a conference title game in person, and b) go to the Orange Bowl... Marino had a bad game, Patriots came through at end.... and the "Miami Dolphins" song their fans kept singing (I was a true neutral) was incredibly annoying!!
#27 by jheidelberg // Jan 31, 2022 - 7:59pm
I was at the game in 2019 when Miami scored a TD near the end of the first half against the Ravens, to go to halftime trailing only 42-10. The song is funny in this situation, but yes annoying.
Now which came first, the Houston Oilers song or the Miami Dolphins song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUrMnlTB_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi2ts2s7dc
It really is a copycat league, I hope that all that dared to listen survived these two songs without getting too sick.
#10 by occams_pointed… // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:03pm
because they can see the flaws with their team. They've all been complaining about the OL since Whitworth was allowed to walk. That defense doesn't have superstars unless you pay attention and notice how good Reader is, basically Reader is Mr Universe in the Not Aaron Donald Division. Bengals do have good special teams, and McPherson hasn't missed any kicks in the post-season. With Joe Burrow and some gritty opportunistic defense they overcame their issues and made the Super Bowl. It's been annoying reading all the whining about how that somehow makes the Super Bowl less Super.
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ says the Bengals have a lot of room to fix their issues after this season is over. So maybe they'll come back next year with some better DVOA and some more cigars for Burrow.
#18 by oaktoon // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:49pm
It makes the game more Super-- Burrow ain't a Tony Eason or even Joe Flacco one-off-- he's the real deal, and the team around him, God and Mike Brown willing, should only get better... Mahomes and State Farm-- even against Rodgers-- would have been less compelling. And I guarantee that crowd-- once you subtract all the corporate hangers-on--will be 65% Bengal fans. Like Wisconsin going to the Rose Bowl and a Sea of Red... Sea of Orange!!
#19 by oaktoon // Jan 31, 2022 - 6:51pm
80% of America is rooting for the Bengals. outside of some So Cal types, some pathetic Lions fans who know this is as close as they will ever get, a few remaining St. Louis holdouts-- and Matthew Stafford's HS class in Texas or college mates from Georgia, WHO WOULD EVER ROOT FOR THE RAMS? Oh yeah, OBJ, Sr...
#23 by theslothook // Jan 31, 2022 - 7:29pm
I'm not sure why anyone finds the rams so objectionable. It's not like Matthew Stafford is a bad guy or anything. And he certainly didn't diva his way out of Detroit.
As a neutral fan I'll be slightly rooting for Cincinnati because they never won before, but I wouldn't have any problems if Matthew Stafford and Aaron Donald in particular came away with a ring.
#24 by theslothook // Jan 31, 2022 - 7:29pm
I'm not sure why anyone finds the rams so objectionable. It's not like Matthew Stafford is a bad guy or anything. And he certainly didn't diva his way out of Detroit.
As a neutral fan I'll be slightly rooting for Cincinnati because they never won before, but I wouldn't have any problems if Matthew Stafford and Aaron Donald in particular came away with a ring.
#33 by mehllageman56 // Jan 31, 2022 - 10:29pm
I'm perfectly fine with either team winning. The only reason I want the Bengals to win is this upcoming Saturday Night Live skit:
Sportsmax II
Bengals celebrating in locker room, with trophy. Mike Effing White enters in his Jets jersey.
Pete Davidson as Joe Burrow (really, they look like the same person): Hey, who are you? I don't remember you playing today.
MFW: I'm Mike ____ White. You don't remember me beating you?
PD as JB: Oh, now I remember. So you're here to congratulate us? (turns to his team mates).
MFW: No, I'm- (grabs Super Bowl trophy) here to take what's mine. I own you guys, what's yours is now mine. (tries to run off).
PD as JB: Hey you can't take that, we worked really hard and beat some great teams to win that. (grabs it back). Perhaps next year you can win it all.
MFW: No, we can't. (grabs it back). If we win it all, we have to give it to Tom Brady. I'm on the Jets, remember?
#45 by oaktoon // Feb 01, 2022 - 12:59pm
1. Cincinnati vs LA-- Hollywood will never win this matchup
2. People love the underdog
3. Burrow is a better and more interesting story than Stafford, in part because of the LSU piece, in part because he returned to his native state
4. The OBJ/Ramsey/Von Miller even Stafford, to a degree acquistions-- while not as "unfair" as we see in MLB or how the Lakers continually have reloaded through the decades-- are basically fan turnoffs... Burrow OTOH is the old-fashioned way-- team sucks, draft a star
5. people around the country now know there is no fan base in LA for either of their teams-- Rams more than Chargers, but that's like saying a quarter is more than a nickel-- still won't buy squat. The new stadium was a cold heartless move that ripped the guts out of one fan base-- San Diego--and ended another (albeit, product of another cold heartless move but two wrongs dont make a right)== and this game, regardless of who would play, was the real aim. The fact that the game which got the Rams to THE game had so many fans rooting for the opponent that the home QB had to go to a slient count-- as he did in the final game of the regular season--speaks volumes
6. Stan Kroenke is who he is....Yeah, the Browns have been cheap, but they do make an attempt to connect with their fans. Ask Arsenal supporters about their feelings toward Kroenke-- it isn't pretty
Prior to this game, if you polled Southern California football fans for their favorite teams, it would be Raiders, Niners, Chargers (obviously lower if you remove SD from it) then Rams and Cowboys in a close contest for 4th.... That may change now, but it doesn't change the basic reality that this is mostly a team without a country...
#49 by Joey-Harringto… // Feb 01, 2022 - 3:42pm
So clearly, you have opinions about/care a great deal about all of that stuff. But it's a pretty big assumption on your part that the sports-watching public at large cares about any of that, and share your opinions.
#53 by oaktoon // Feb 01, 2022 - 11:15pm
just pick one-- and most people will... Underdog-- that gets a lot; Burrow/LSU-- more Middle America v Hollywood-- check No LA Fan base/Super Team-- some more... I realize the Arsenal fans are a niche, but trust me, they're out there :) I just think karma may be at work here-- this is not a HOME field, by any stretch of the imagination...
#35 by Joey-Harringto… // Feb 01, 2022 - 4:10am
I don’t know where you get “80%’ from. This is not like a Patriots vs plucky underdog situation. The Rams have a more big names and should certainly be favorites, but most knowledgeable sports fans can see that they have their warts. Cooper Kupp and Aaron Donald is fun to watch, and seem like likeable guys. Stafford is a fun story, and also likeable. He’s way more likable than, Aaron Rodgers, for instance (if he had made the Super Bowl, I feel pretty confident a lot of neutral fans would be rooting against him for various reasons).
#38 by Bob Smith // Feb 01, 2022 - 9:05am
I agree with you 100% about Rodgers and would add that if Brady was in this S.B. the animosity would extend far beyond the neutral fans.
I am thinking along the lines of those that say-it's time to watch my 1 and only football game for the year-but I sure hope Brady doesn't win again.
#46 by oaktoon // Feb 01, 2022 - 1:06pm
Prior to the last season and his foolishness/dishonesty about Vaccinations, Rodgers and Packers would have been the fan favorites in most SB matchups...
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of otherwise neutral fans will be pulling for the Bengals... Cooper Kupp was utterly unknown to them prior to this season, Donald is a defensive player and hardly marquee, Stafford a mercenary (not his fault) who will pull in some of his former fan bases, I agree... They are not enough to overcome the pieces I listed above-- not the least of which is that people do NOT respect a team that can't even get half of the fans to root for them in a HOME game.... (And I root for one which when they play Boston or NYY suffer the same fate-- the Moneyball A's)
#52 by LionInAZ // Feb 01, 2022 - 8:53pm
If you think Aaron Donald, Von Miller, Beckham, Jalen Ramsey, Kupp and Stafford are fan turnoffs, yet Burrow/Chase with a cast of nobodies are somehow national favorites, then you realllly need help.
And your use of the word "mercenary" defies dictionary definition. Stafford was traded, he wasn't a free agent. Technically, Brady was the mercenary when he joined the Bucs to acquire more Super Bowl bling.
But then again, self-delusion is your stock in trade, considering how many times you've argued that the Packers were waaayyyy better than their DVOA said. One would hope you would learn from your failures.
#54 by oaktoon // Feb 01, 2022 - 11:22pm
but to be fair, Never said "WAYYY Better"-- not this year, last or the one before.. Simply argued-- in the end, more correct than not-- that the differences DVOA supposedly measured and uncovered for a whole lot of teams-- not just GB-- were either a) not dispositive or b) much smaller than believed. And here we have a supposedly "bad" or at least mediocre team -- by DVOA's standard--in the Super Bowl.
As for the fan bias in this game, of course I'm right. it is ludicrous to think neutrals will choose to root for the Rams in big numbers. A fractured and vagabond history. No soul. No fan base... Burrow and Chase are a better story all by themselves-- add underdog, add team that's never won, add Middle America v LA-- this one's easy. And fun. The game is still fun... and man what a story if Burrow and the Bengals win this...
#39 by Scott P. // Feb 01, 2022 - 9:26am
Remind me how total DVOA is calculated? I always thought it was 3/7 offense, 3/7 defense, 1/7 special teams, but then there is no way 5% on offense, 2% on defense, and 17% on special teams could combine to equal 20%.
#42 by Aaron Schatz // Feb 01, 2022 - 10:17am
Total DVOA is simply Offense - Defense + Special Teams
The "4-3-1" idea is about the range of the numbers. In general, the range of offensive ratings is about 4x larger than the range of special teams, while the range of defensive ratings is about 3x larger than the range of special teams (and thus 3/4 the size of the range of offensive ratings).
#56 by ErinS // Feb 02, 2022 - 1:51pm
Tell me if this sounds familiar: an exciting, young, smack-talking upstart from the SEC has seemingly re-vitalized a cat themed franchise. Alongside him are a plucky group of skill position players, an opportunistic defense, and a BAD offensive line. All that stand in their way is a stout defensive front headlined by legendary pass-rusher DeMar.., I mean Aaron Donald, a generational edge-rusher in Von Miller, a strong secondary, and an offense helmed by an older, oft injured, mistake prone quarterback. How will this all turn out?
#62 by ErinS // Feb 04, 2022 - 1:28pm
It's definitely going under the radar and other statistics paint similarly bleak pictures of the Bengal's offense, in particular QBR. Joe Burrow's QBR over the course of the playoffs is 46.6 and by the list given here, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jared-goff-needs-to-play-better/, and even adding Jimmy G's QBR of 45.8 (2019 Playoffs) he would be one of the worst performing quarterbacks by that metric to play in the SB since 2006.