Final 2012 DVOA Ratings

Final 2012 DVOA Ratings
Final 2012 DVOA Ratings
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Aaron Schatz

A bit of a close call in their final game isn't enough to drop the Seahawks out of the top spot in the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings, making Seattle our top team for 2012. Denver and New England had convincing wins in the final week and move a bit closer to Seattle, but still rank two and three. San Francisco is fourth, and Green Bay rounds out the top five.

Each year, we go through and look at how the best and worst teams of the year fit in among all the teams which have DVOA ratings; right now, that goes back to 1991. Perhaps what's most remarkable about this season is that three different teams end up in the all-time DVOA top 12. When I announced this on Twitter, one follower responded that none of these teams really seems like an all-time top ten team. That seems true, and I wonder why that is. Some of it may be that Seattle stuffed so much of its value into three games, but that's not true of Denver or New England.

BEST TOTAL DVOA, 1991-2012
Year Team DVOA
1991 WAS 56.9%
2007 NE 52.9%
2010 NE 44.6%
1996 GB 42.0%
1995 SF 40.0%
2012 SEA 38.3%
2004 PIT 37.6%
2012 DEN 36.6%
2010 PIT 35.4%
1992 DAL 35.1%
2012 NE 34.9%
2004 NE 34.2%

Honestly, if you compare this year's best teams to some of the other great teams of the last 20 years, they look pretty good. The 1992 Cowboys, for example, went 13-3 and outscored opponents by 166 points. That's often considered the best of the three Cowboys teams that won the title. Well, the Broncos just went 13-3 and outscored opponents by 192 points. The Patriots went 12-4, the same as the 1993 Cowboys and 1995 Cowboys, and outscored opponents by 226 points, far more than either of those Cowboys teams.

The 1992 Cowboys lost to Philadelphia 31-7 in Week 5. The 1994 49ers lost to Philadelphia 40-8, coincidentally also in Week 5. The 1996 Packers lost to Dallas 21-6 in Week 12. That's three of the best teams of the 90's, and each one had at least one loss by two touchdowns. But Seattle, Denver, and New England combined for zero losses of more than two touchdowns. In fact, the only double-digit loss by any of those three teams was when New England beat Denver 31-21.

These are legitimately great teams, in part because they are so well-balanced. Seattle ended up ranking in the top four in offense, defense, and special teams. Denver (and San Francisco as well) ranks in the top five in both offense and defense, although the special teams are a little lower. The Patriots are known for being much better on offense than on defense, but even their defense ended up 15th in DVOA this year. Is that partly because they have so many turnovers? Sure, but FO metrics don't exactly overdose on the value of turnovers. We know that they are more variable than yardage totals.

The other remarkable thing about both Seattle and Denver is the improvement. Seattle was 19th in DVOA last year; Denver was 24th even though the Broncos snuck into the playoffs. That means that both Denver and Seattle make the list of the best year-to-year DVOA improvements we've ever measured. Denver is second behind only the 2010 Lions, while the Seahawks are fourth.

Best Year-to-Year DVOA Improvement, 1991-2012
Year Team DVOA Y-1 Rank DVOA Rank Change
2010 DET -51.6% 32 -1.1% 18 50.5%
2012 DEN -11.8% 24 36.6% 2 48.3%
1999 STL -9.9% 20 34.0% 1 43.8%
2012 SEA -1.5% 19 38.3% 1 39.8%
1999 OAK -18.3% 27 21.2% 3 39.5%
2000 NO -40.3% 31 -0.9% 19 39.4%
2004 PIT -1.6% 19 37.6% 1 39.1%
2004 BUF -7.3% 23 31.3% 3 38.7%
2008 CAR -20.6% 26 18.0% 6 38.6%
2007 TB -19.7% 28 17.8% 8 37.6%

Readers know we've been tracking how well the best 2012 teams rank in DVOA for a few weeks now, not only for total DVOA but also for each unit. In the end, the 2012 Patriots don't end up on the list of the top dozen offenses ever. The Bears defense and the Ravens special teams don't end up ranking as highly as we expected a few weeks ago, but they do make the all-time lists:

Year Team DVOA x Year Team DVOA
1991 PHI -42.4% x 2002 NO 12.2%
2002 TB -31.8% x 2007 CHI 11.2%
2008 PIT -29.0% x 1994 CLE1 10.1%
2004 BUF -28.5% x 1996 CAR 9.8%
2008 BAL -27.8% x 2009 CLE 9.7%
2012 CHI -26.8% x 1998 DAL 9.2%
2009 NYJ -25.5% x 2012 BAL 9.0%
2000 TEN -25.0% x 2001 PHI 8.9%
2003 BAL -25.0% x 1997 DAL 8.9%
1991 NO -24.5% x 2000 MIA 8.8%
2000 BAL -23.8% x 2005 BUF 8.8%
1995 SF -23.7% x 2004 BUF 8.7%

On the other hand, we've got the Indianapolis Colts, otherwise known as "the worst 11-5 team in NFL history." I don't mean to take anything away from the Colts' big win over Houston yesterday. The Colts get 54.3% DVOA for that game, by far their best single-game DVOA of the season. It was enough to raise them up almost five percentage points, and they went from 28th to 25th. But this is still the worst 11-5 team ever. The Colts have -16.0% DVOA, making them the first team to ever go 11-5 with a DVOA below -10%. The only other teams to go 11-5 with negative DVOA were the 2000 Vikings (-6.3%), the 2004 Falcons (-4.8%), and the 2005 Bears (-0.9%). In fact, even if they had lost to Houston on Sunday, the Colts would be the first team to ever go 10-6 with DVOA below -10%. 

Would you prefer simple points scored and allowed to complicated DVOA? OK, well, the Colts were the first 11-5 team ever to be outscored by their opponents, 387-357. The difference between the Colts' regular winning percentage and Pythagorean winning percentage, .238, is the second-highest since the AFL-NFL merger. The only team with a bigger gap was the 1992 Indianapolis Colts, who went 9-7 despite being outscored 302-216. That Colts team had a -27.2% DVOA. They were 1-15 the year before and 4-12 the year after. I have a feeling that the 2013 Colts won't be that bad, because they're going to get improvement from their young quarterback and they'll draft a lot of talent on defense, but their luck will regress even if their Luck does not. The Colts are also unlikely to play the league's easiest schedule again.

[ad placeholder 3]

The Colts do not have the worst DVOA of any playoff team ever. Three teams were worse: the 2004 Rams (-27.2%), the 2010 Seahawks (-22.9%), and the 1998 Cardinals (-17.1%). All three of those teams won their first playoff game anyway.

The flip side of the Colts would be the Detroit Lions, who went 4-12 despite finishing 16th in DVOA. The Lions had 6.4 Pythagorean wins, and went 3-9 in games decided by a touchdown or less.

Despite the yardage totals of Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson, this year there really weren't any players who came close to any DVOA or DYAR records. We'll look at the best and worst players in a Quick Reads article tomorrow. 

All stats pages should now be updated (or, at least, will be in the next few minutes) including snap counts and the FO Premium database. Loser League results will be updated with the winner announced on Wednesday afternoon.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through the entire 2012 regular season, 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.)

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. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE. LAST WEEK represents rank after Week 16, while LAST YEAR represents rank in 2011.

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>

1 SEA 38.3% 1 19 11-5 46.6% 1 18.5% 4 -14.1% 4 5.7% 3
2 DEN 36.6% 2 24 13-3 41.4% 2 22.1% 2 -13.8% 5 0.7% 13
3 NE 34.9% 3 3 12-4 37.5% 3 30.8% 1 1.3% 15 5.5% 4
4 SF 29.9% 4 6 11-4-1 24.1% 5 17.0% 5 -14.3% 2 -1.5% 20
5 GB 26.6% 5 1 11-5 24.2% 4 19.5% 3 -7.3% 8 -0.2% 18
6 CHI 20.5% 6 15 10-6 15.7% 8 -10.9% 26 -26.8% 1 4.7% 6
7 NYG 13.5% 9 12 9-7 9.5% 10 12.9% 7 1.4% 16 2.0% 10
8 BAL 9.8% 8 7 10-6 8.3% 11 3.0% 13 2.2% 19 9.0% 1
9 WAS 9.6% 11 21 10-6 18.1% 6 15.3% 6 1.8% 17 -4.0% 27
10 ATL 9.1% 7 8 13-3 2.4% 13 6.1% 12 -2.9% 12 0.1% 16
11 HOU 6.6% 10 5 12-4 -3.0% 19 0.1% 16 -14.2% 3 -7.7% 32
12 CIN 6.1% 13 17 10-6 18.0% 7 -1.8% 17 -3.8% 10 4.1% 7
13 CAR 5.5% 12 20 7-9 10.9% 9 7.1% 10 -3.1% 11 -4.8% 29
14 MIN 2.0% 16 29 10-6 -1.5% 17 0.3% 15 3.1% 21 4.7% 5
15 STL 1.1% 17 32 7-8-1 4.3% 12 -4.7% 21 -9.2% 7 -3.4% 26
16 DET 0.2% 15 11 4-12 1.3% 14 12.3% 8 7.0% 24 -5.1% 30
17 DAL -0.4% 14 14 8-8 -0.4% 16 6.1% 11 6.7% 23 0.2% 15
18 PIT -1.0% 18 4 8-8 0.6% 15 -3.8% 19 -2.9% 13 -0.1% 17
19 NO -5.2% 20 2 7-9 -1.8% 18 11.9% 9 14.8% 32 -2.3% 23
20 TB -6.6% 21 30 7-9 -9.1% 23 0.6% 14 3.0% 20 -4.3% 28
21 MIA -7.3% 19 18 7-9 -12.1% 24 -8.4% 22 -0.6% 14 0.4% 14
22 SD -9.1% 22 16 7-9 -7.0% 22 -10.1% 24 2.0% 18 3.0% 8
23 BUF -12.2% 24 23 6-10 -6.9% 21 -4.3% 20 10.6% 27 2.7% 9
24 CLE -13.5% 23 25 5-11 -6.6% 20 -15.1% 27 4.5% 22 6.1% 2
25 IND -16.0% 28 31 11-5 -14.0% 25 -2.9% 18 14.0% 31 0.9% 12
26 ARI -16.3% 26 28 5-11 -23.4% 27 -31.0% 32 -13.5% 6 1.1% 11
27 NYJ -17.9% 25 10 6-10 -18.2% 26 -20.6% 30 -4.2% 9 -1.5% 21
28 PHI -22.7% 27 9 4-12 -27.3% 30 -10.8% 25 9.4% 26 -2.6% 24
29 OAK -27.8% 29 22 4-12 -26.2% 29 -9.6% 23 12.5% 29 -5.8% 31
30 TEN -29.3% 31 13 6-10 -23.6% 28 -20.5% 29 7.4% 25 -1.4% 19
31 JAC -33.0% 30 27 2-14 -29.6% 31 -18.3% 28 11.7% 28 -3.0% 25
32 KC -40.4% 32 26 2-14 -39.8% 32 -25.1% 31 13.2% 30 -2.1% 22
  • 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.
  • 2012 SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative).
  • PYTHAGOREAN WINS represent a projection of the team's expected wins based solely on points scored and allowed. Please note that this is based on the new formula introduced last year which changes the exponent of the Pythagorean formula based on the offensive environment of each team's games.
  • 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).
RANK 2012
1 SEA 38.3% 11-5 30.6% 13.0 3 5.1% 4 12.5 3 14.3% 21
2 DEN 36.6% 13-3 38.8% 14.7 1 -6.8% 31 12.5 2 7.7% 4
3 NE 34.9% 12-4 37.6% 13.4 2 -2.9% 21 12.7 1 11.8% 11
4 SF 29.9% 11-4-1 24.0% 12.5 4 6.3% 3 11.4 4 21.7% 31
5 GB 26.6% 11-5 18.8% 11.8 5 2.2% 9 10.5 7 16.3% 27
6 CHI 20.5% 10-6 18.2% 11.0 6 2.8% 8 10.8 6 12.6% 12
7 NYG 13.5% 9-7 12.3% 9.5 8 2.1% 10 10.2 9 33.5% 32
8 BAL 9.8% 10-6 11.6% 9.2 9 -1.0% 16 9.4 11 15.6% 24
9 WAS 9.6% 10-6 13.7% 9.9 7 -0.7% 15 9.2 12 8.5% 5
10 ATL 9.1% 13-3 14.7% 9.1 10 -4.3% 27 11.2 5 13.7% 17
11 HOU 6.6% 12-4 14.7% 8.3 14 -4.0% 26 10.2 8 14.0% 18
12 CIN 6.1% 10-6 12.1% 8.7 13 -5.6% 29 9.9 10 14.0% 19
13 CAR 5.5% 7-9 5.0% 8.8 11 0.8% 13 7.8 18 13.1% 13
14 MIN 2.0% 10-6 -0.3% 8.8 12 4.9% 5 8.8 13 7.6% 3
15 STL 1.1% 7-8-1 -6.3% 8.1 15 9.6% 2 6.6 22 9.9% 8
16 DET 0.2% 4-12 -5.7% 7.6 18 4.1% 6 6.4 23 5.3% 1
RANK 2012
17 DAL -0.4% 8-8 -4.6% 7.9 16 4.0% 7 7.4 19 6.9% 2
18 PIT -1.0% 8-8 5.5% 7.4 20 -5.2% 28 8.7 14 14.5% 23
19 NO -5.2% 7-9 -3.3% 6.4 23 2.0% 12 8.2 15 14.1% 20
20 TB -6.6% 7-9 -3.6% 7.8 17 -1.2% 17 7.9 17 13.6% 16
21 MIA -7.3% 7-9 -4.9% 7.6 19 -1.9% 19 7.1 21 16.1% 25
22 SD -9.1% 7-9 -4.5% 6.6 21 -6.6% 30 8.0 16 9.3% 7
23 BUF -12.2% 6-10 -13.7% 6.5 22 -3.3% 24 5.7 25 16.5% 28
24 CLE -13.5% 5-11 -8.3% 6.2 25 -2.4% 20 6.1 24 11.5% 10
25 IND -16.0% 11-5 -9.7% 6.2 24 -7.4% 32 7.2 20 11.4% 9
26 ARI -16.3% 5-11 -27.7% 4.8 27 10.7% 1 4.8 27 16.1% 26
27 NYJ -17.9% 6-10 -15.9% 5.6 26 0.1% 14 5.3 26 17.6% 29
28 PHI -22.7% 4-12 -26.6% 4.5 28 2.1% 11 3.9 30 13.4% 14
29 OAK -27.8% 4-12 -23.5% 3.7 29 -3.9% 25 4.1 29 14.4% 22
30 TEN -29.3% 6-10 -28.3% 3.3 30 -3.0% 22 4.6 28 20.2% 30
31 JAC -33.0% 2-14 -29.7% 2.7 31 -3.3% 23 3.3 31 8.8% 6
32 KC -40.4% 2-14 -44.0% 2.3 32 -1.5% 18 2.5 32 13.4% 15

(Note: Although this post is titled "Final DVOA Ratings," unofficial postseason ratings will continue each Monday through the playoffs. Also, play-by-play changes made over the next few weeks could result in some small changes to these final ratings.)


190 comments, Last at 04 Jan 2013, 7:59pm

#1 by nuk // Dec 31, 2012 - 4:32pm

In addition to being the worst DVOA team ever with at least 10 wins ('12), the Colts are the worst-rated team with at least 9 wins ('92), 13 wins ('99), and 14 wins ('09). FO hates the Colts :)

Points: 0

#106 by Bobman // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:35am

That's kind of neat. I used to gripe to Aaron that they always under-projected the Colts and DVOA just couldn't really grasp Manning's contribution. Turns out it's the damn horseshoe that's the problem. Given the turnover at all levels over the years, that's a pretty odd quirk for one team out of 32 to have.

Though regarding "luck" I'd have to say this year was actually pretty crappy. Injuries, turnovers, Cecil Shorts--half of the Jags' win total! Crosby missing a late kick for GB is the only "they won because of a lucky bounce" event I can remember offhand. I DID read that Luck had a high total of dropped INTs, which is both fortuitous and correctable as a QB matures.

I cannot see their luck being measurably worse next year.

Points: 0

#114 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 02, 2013 - 5:59am

You may be not be remembering other "lucky bounces". For instance, on their game-winning drive against Detroit, Drayton Florence dropped a Luck INT that hit him in the hands (no, I'm not still angry/bitter). I didn't watch every Colts game, but with has many close wins as they had, there are bound to be others (and not just on the final drive).

Points: 0

#168 by whitexhysteria (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:55pm

You have obviously forget about the absolute garbage blowing of the whistle towards the end of regulation against Tennessee, in which a fumble that was recovered by Tennessee in winning field goal range was called due to "forward progress." If you watched that game, then you can probably agree the receiver/tight end/back that had the ball was not even close to the point that the whistle is blown the other 99 times. Thus, being another lucky bounce that they received.

So, with the current comments we have three lucky bounces they got. They outplayed themselves a lot this year, though with Luck progressing over the offseason I don't think they will fall off much, if at all.

Points: 0

#169 by TonyinShanghai (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 12:00am

Sometimes it IS about winning ;)

Points: 0

#2 by Nick Bradley (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 4:36pm

your model is broken.

Points: 0

#4 by Perfundle // Dec 31, 2012 - 4:47pm

Best teams in DVOA history does not equal best teams in NFL history. To begin with, DVOA only goes back to 1991; no 1985 Bears or 1972 Dolphins, for instance. Second, DVOA has been adjusted so that the league average is 0. All you can say is that Seattle, Denver and NE are among the best teams at beating the league average.

Points: 0

#74 by AT (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 11:49am

Other more comprehensive metrics have considered the '91 Redskins and '85 Bears to be essentially tied for best team of all time.

Points: 0

#91 by Cuenca Guy // Jan 01, 2013 - 5:12pm

Excellent point. DVOA isn't about total quality, but about quality compared to "average".

Points: 0

#3 by Dan in Philly (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 4:40pm

Peyton Manning is overrated...

Points: 0

#36 by anon24 (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:30pm

God, yes. It's so obvious that the wide receivers and the offensive line have been carrying the Broncs all season. Peyton was just along for a ride.

Points: 0

#107 by Bobman // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:37am

Absolutely. I even heard that Archie and Olivia filed papers to disinherit Peyton and adopt Decker and Thomas, so it must be true.

Points: 0

#5 by In_Belichick_W… // Dec 31, 2012 - 4:50pm

Defining accomplishment of the 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars:
"In the end, the 2012 Patriots don't end up on the list of the top dozen offenses ever."
The Jags got to spoil something anyway.

Points: 0

#7 by Myk (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 5:05pm

The point about not having a big loss is a big deal for teams like Seattle. Last night I went back and looked to if d that for the entire season the team was behind by more than 7 points for a TOTAL of 25 minutes and 44 seconds. Most of that comes from the New England game where Seattle fell behind by 13 points for most of a quarter. Of course, they ended up coming back to win that game. Take out the NE game and Seattle was playing while behind by more than one possession for roughly 10 minutes. Someone might be able to prove me wrong...but that seems to be a pretty good sign of a great team.

Points: 0

#16 by kramer (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:20pm

Similar to this, the 2010 Packers never trailed by more than 7 points all season.

Points: 0

#184 by zdneal (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 12:40pm

And similar to those Packers, Seattle benefited from an improperly called touchdown catch.

Points: 0

#20 by Fkdc (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:29pm

I'm not sure that really means anything. The Redskins, who are a merely a good team, had only one loss by two possessions (steelers game). They trailed for most of the Panthers game too, but I think they led in the 4th quarter in their other 4 losses.

I haven't looked back at the game logs, but I don't remember them trailing by double digits for extended period of time other than the Steelers game.

I'm sure some other good or even average teams have seasons where they don't lose any big ones.

Points: 0

#33 by Perfundle // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:58pm

Yeah, weird stats like that don't really mean that much. Stats like Pythogorean wins are much more indicative of ability, the 2011 Giants notwithstanding, and here, Seattle is 3rd and Washington is 12th.

Points: 0

#45 by Myk (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 9:41pm

Pretty sure that never being down by a large amount is important to judging a teams skill. They listed above that one reason the three team performed so well in DVOA was cause they never got blown out. Staying close consistently. Through the ups and downs of your team is a good thing

Points: 0

#47 by Anger...rising // Dec 31, 2012 - 9:50pm

Not getting blown out matters. The order in which the points are distributed within the game doesn't. It's like crediting the 1990 Cincinnati Reds as a team of historical significance, despite winning 91 games, based on leading the NL West every day of the season. That's trivia.

Points: 0

#56 by Perfundle // Dec 31, 2012 - 11:49pm

Right. New England's DVOA didn't get dropped more than normal when they went down 31-3 against San Francisco (and thus were behind by more than 7 points for a long duration), because they ended up losing 41-34. I mean, even the 1985 Bears lost their only game by double digits. One or two bad games doesn't disqualify a team from greatness.

Points: 0

#34 by Mountain Time … // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:24pm

That Panthers game was a fluke. The Panthers touchdown came 35 yards after the play had been whistled dead. The Redskins defenders heard the whistle and stopped trying to tackle DeAngelo Williams, because that's a good way to get a 15-yard penalty and a hefty fine. Even though Williams never stepped out of bounds and continued running to the end zone, the ref thought he had stepped out, and blew his whistle. Therefore, it sucks that it was a bad call, but the play is over.

But no! The refs retroactively decided the whistle didn't count (and in fact denied that there even was a whistle) and awarded a touchdown to the Panthers. It was one of the most infuriating calls of the season, even moreso than the more famous Seattle-Green Bay miscall. On that one the replacement refs were close, if incorrect. On this one the regular refs were absolutely wrong, and wrong in a way that destroys the authority of the referee and the integrity of the game. Just a terrible, terrible call.

Points: 0

#50 by Zach (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:09pm

Agreed, that call was just insanely bad.

Points: 0

#117 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 9:54am

I think the most infuriating call of the season was when the NFL changed their rule on coaches challenges after a TD/TO after the Detroit-Houston game, and didn't tell anyone.

Because they sure didn't enforce it in the MIN-GB game.

Points: 0

#126 by Eddo // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:24am

They didn't "change[] their rule". Per the officials, McCarthy's challenge came after the replay booth official signaled to the crew chief that the Jones fumble should be reviewed.

Schwartz, on the other hand, threw his challenge flag before the replay booth official signaled for a review. (I believe he even threw it while the play was still going on.)

Now, you can quibble with the timing (did McCarthy actually throw his flag prior to the signal, and the officials didn't see it - or worse, willfully ignored it?), but the rule absolutely did not change.

Points: 0

#128 by George (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:34am

If every TD or turnover is to be reviewed by default, then why would it matter when the challenge flag came out? Both plays were going to be reviewed, it shouldn't matter if the booth signaled for review before the flag or not. The officials changed how the rule was enforced.

Points: 0

#133 by Eddo // Jan 02, 2013 - 12:24pm

Every touchdown or turnover is most emphatically NOT reviewed "by default". Scoring plays and turnovers are treated as any other play that happens inside the two-minute warning: the booth official is the one to trigger a review, but it's still at his discretion.

Points: 0

#135 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:14pm

The actual statute is interesting in the context of the DET-HOU and GB-MIN rulings. Regardless of interpretation, they aren't a consistent application of the rules.

The rule (Rule 15, Section 9) is that the replay official has authority over scoring plays and turnovers, as well as two-minute warning situations. The penalty application is specifically that a challenging team cannot benefit if they trigger a delay-of-game penalty. (Which is how the NFL justifies not reviewing the erroneous Forsett TD).

Thing is, GB was penalized 15 yards for an illegitimately challenge. Thus, they were ruled to have delayed the game. Under 15:9, that means that the challenge had to stop -- GB was now forbidden by rule from benefiting from the ruling. The rules make no allowance for the timing of a coach's challenge.

Either the referees completely botched one of the two situations, or the NFL changed the interpretation midstream.

Points: 0

#141 by Eddo // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:57pm

I disagree.

The Schwartz foul was considered a delay, since it came before the booth official requested a review.

The McCarthy foul was not considered a delay, since it came after the booth official requested a review.

The fouls themselves are considered Unsportsmalike Conduct.

I'm curious as to where you found that text, as well. Is that from the full rulebook or the digest?

Points: 0

#143 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:43pm

Full rulebook. (page 97 of 120 of the pdf)

Thing is, if the booth is going to review it anyway, then throwing the flag *isn't a delay*.

More and more, I'm of the opinion that the officials completely botched the application of the rule in the DET-HOU game, and the NFL won't come out and admit it because it determined the outcome of the game. They are damned lucky that also bungling the GB-MIN call didn't.

Because god knows, complete rule misapplications didn't totally change the seeding of Houston, Minnesota, GB, or Seattle this year.

Points: 0

#145 by Eddo // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:09pm

"Thing is, if the booth is going to review it anyway, then throwing the flag *isn't a delay*."

But when Schwartz(*) threw the flag, no one knew that the play would be reviewed. The booth official had yet to make a decision. In theory - as in, why the rule is in place - Schwartz could have been throwing the flag to stall while the booth official has more time to look at the call.

(*) Possibly McCarthy, too, but the officials' position is that McCarthy's flag came out after the booth official called for a review.

Points: 0

#185 by zdneal (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 12:44pm

So are you saying that if the official in the booth had decided not to review the Lions play then Schwartz would have been unable to challenge it? And if the booth decided not to review it Schwartz would still have gotten the penalty?

Points: 0

#187 by Eddo // Jan 03, 2013 - 1:03pm

"So are you saying that if the official in the booth had decided not to review the Lions play then Schwartz would have been unable to challenge it?"

Correct. Coaches cannot challenge turnovers and scoring plays. Only the booth official can call for a review.

"And if the booth decided not to review it Schwartz would still have gotten the penalty?"

Correct. Throwing a challenge flag on an unchallengeable play is a fifteen-yard unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

Points: 0

#92 by Cuenca Guy // Jan 01, 2013 - 5:18pm

The Seahawks, however, had the 4th toughest schedule compared to the Redskins' 15th toughest schedule. That makes a difference when looking at the "close games" issue. Also looking at total point differential I think also helps if you're going to look at close games...the Seahawks ended up 3rd in point differential compared to 12th for the Redskins.

Points: 0

#8 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Dec 31, 2012 - 5:13pm

If I were Jim Schwartz, and I were about to meet with the owner about my job, I would pull up this article on my iPad and bring it with me to the meeting (for the all-time DVOA improvement in 2010, and for all the advanced metrics saying his team had rotten luck in 2012, and will improve next year from regression to the mean alone).

Also, I would hack into Youtube and erase all the videos showing the Justin Forsett touchdown and challenge.

I still would like for him to be fired, though.

Points: 0

#118 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 9:57am

The NFL has already changed the enforcement of the Forsett rule, based on week 17.

WC Ford has never fired a coach who showed even the faintest glimmer of promise, and has even retained some who stunk like old cheese.

There are a lot of coaches worse than Jim Schwartz, and the man deserves at least one mulligan year. He did inherit an 0-16 team and got them to the playoffs fast. Besides, since Bobby Layne left, when the Lions haven't boomeranged from season to season, their other option has been putrescence. I'll take the Fontes boomerang.

Points: 0

#125 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:23am

I would prefer, rather than settling for the Fontes boomerang/treadmill of first-round playoff exits, the ownership try to reach the next level. Of course, when the Fords try to "think outside the box" they do silly things like hire Matt Millen, so maybe I should be careful what I wish for.

Points: 0

#136 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:17pm

Thing is, last year's team was basically a 7-9 team that was lucky. This year's team was basically a 7-9 team that was unlucky. Otherwise, they had almost the same performance.

Schwartz may not turn out to be what they need, but I don't think he's done anything to get himself thrown out onto the street. Not without some damn good replacement idea in place.

Points: 0

#180 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 03, 2013 - 11:23am

"Thing is, last year's team was basically a 7-9 team that was lucky."

I don't disagree that the 2011 team had a lot of luck, but saying they were 7-9 quality is overstating it just a bit. The had a solid DVOA, had a few blowout wins, only 1 blowout loss, and pretty much matched their pythagorean win total exactly, while only overperforming their estimated wins by 0.6. A few of the unsustainable things that we should have expected to regress this year included fumble luck, third down defense, and a few other things. They all regressed far more than I expected.

But your overall point about Schwartz may still be valid. He did a good job in 2010 and 2011, but subjectively he did not seem to be on top of things in management and preparation/motivation of the team seeming to be chief amongst them. Those were two things he used to be good at, so maybe he'll recapture the mojo in 2013, but I'm somewhat skeptical.

Points: 0

#186 by zdneal (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 12:49pm

I can almost guarantee that any replacement coach will be no better than Schwartz and may be worse.

Points: 0

#9 by Rafi89 // Dec 31, 2012 - 5:15pm

3 teams in the top 10 for highest DVOA would seem to indicate a lack of parity. How do the bottom teams, by DVOA, compare to the lowest DVOA values of all time?

Points: 0

#29 by Ranccor // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:48pm

In my opinion, parity in the NFL doesn't mean all the teams are equal. It means that any team has a shot at greatness. When you see the top/bottom teams in the league rising and falling consistently across the league, parity is working as intended.

Points: 0

#46 by RickD // Dec 31, 2012 - 9:47pm

That's not really the definition of parity.

The dictionary definition would be that all teams are roughly equal, with low variance in their quality. It has nothing to do with having "an equal shot at greatness."

Points: 0

#51 by Kurt // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:26pm

But Ranccor is right about the functional definition of parity as applied to the NFL. When people talk about parity it's always about how many teams have won the Super Bowl or been in the playoffs in the last X years.

Points: 0

#71 by Mountain Time … // Jan 01, 2013 - 11:15am

Wouldn't it be "the Ranccor is right..."?

Points: 0

#52 by Anonymousse (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:35pm

They all are roughly equal, just not in the period of one season.

Points: 0

#97 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 01, 2013 - 7:08pm

This year's worst teams were nowhere near as extreme as this year's best teams, either in total DVOA or in any of the three splits. The Chiefs end up as the 10th worst team ever in total DVOA. The Jaguars aren't even in the bottom 25.

The Cardinals are the 11th worst offense since 1991.

The Saints don't even make the 40 worst defenses since 1991. This year's defenses were very closely packed except for Chicago.

The Texans are the 14th worst special teams since 1991.

Points: 0

#10 by Jeff Huter (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 5:21pm

While DVOA and conventional stats hate the Colts, they actually faired well (win/loss) against other playoff teams. They played 5 games against teams going to the playoffs and went 3/2 (Wins against MIN, GB, HOU, Losses to NE and HOU). So to say, this team can't compete in the playoffs, I think is short-sighted. In fact, I like their chances in BAL despite DVOA greatly favoring BAL.

The other teams in the AFC haven't exactly done tons better against other playoff teams. In fact, the Colts are the only team in the AFC with a winning record against playoff teams.

NE => 3/3
DEV => 1/3
HOU => 3/3
BAL => 2/4
CIN => 2/2

Both of BAL wins against playoff teams were in weeks 1 and 3. They definitely have faired well against playoff teams since.

** Forgive any errors in the records. I compiled these quickly and may have overlooked something.

Points: 0

#11 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:01pm

Denver went 2-3 but that aside, here's an article that analyzes how predictive wins against quality opponents are compared to large wins against weaker opponents.

I mean, I agree that it's be foolish to say that the Colts can't win in the playoffs. I mean it was pointed out above that other teams that made the playoffs rated even worse won games in the playoffs nonetheless, but it does mean that DVOA doesn't favor them in any game that they play and DVOA correlates fairly well with future success, so it's not a good sign.

But just saying that you didn't choose a particularly predictive stat for what you're saying.

Points: 0

#13 by CaptFamous (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:02pm

The concept of things like "record against playoff teams" has a lot of circular-esque logic to it. Besides the obvious (best teams = more parity, smaller sample size of games), there's the fact that your record against playoff teams is based on how they play in every other game of that season.

Case 1: If Green Bay had it's worst game of the year with the worst turnover luck (not saying they did) against Indy, then beat a bunch of other teams in normal performances, they're status as a playoff team doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of Indy's performance in the win.

Case 2: If Minnesota loses to Green Bay, Indy's record against playoff teams drops to 2-3, as Minnesota is no longer a playoff team, and Chicago is (and they beat Indy in the 1st week), despite the fact that the Colts didn't even play in this game.

Similar weird example: Last season, lots of people were harping in the Patriots for their poor record against teams with winning records (0-2 I think) and their lack of games against said teams. However, they played 7 (7!) games against teams who finished 8-8. In addition, one of their losses was to the Giants, who finished 9-7. So in reality, there were 7 games they could have lost that would have made their record against winning teams worse, but only one game they could have won that would have made it better.

Points: 0

#21 by CaptFamous (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:32pm

Interesting (and mostly unrelated) side note (and likely just as inconsequential) - If you look at point differential instead of record against playoff teams, the AFC seeds as follows (assuming I can still add in my head) (Sequence is seed, number is ranking by point differential):


And only the first two are positive (NE is something like +65, DEN is +3). Indianapolis is around -40.

Points: 0

#26 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:01pm

Only the Colts have a negative point differential.

New England is +226 and Denver is +192, but Baltimore is +54, Cincy is +71, Houston is +85 and Indy is -30.

Points: 0

#27 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:04pm

Oh, I get what you're saying now. Against playoff teams Denver and New England are positive in point differential.

Points: 0

#116 by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 8:27am

This is all true, but at least in regards to your case #1, any measure that factors in opponent strength suffers from the same problem. One of the big reasons the Colts rank so low in DVOA is their strength of schedule. SOS is mostly driven by how those teams did in all their other games.

Points: 0

#28 by JonFrum // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:19pm

If the Patriots had lost one of their two games against the Jets last year, they would have had one more win against a team with a winning record - the Jets ended up 8-8.

Cherry picking a metric will tell you anything you want it to. The season is too short to pick apart wins and losses to tell a story.

Points: 0

#37 by Mountain Time … // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:33pm

Ha, this point is brilliant! Well done.

Points: 0

#40 by CaptFamous (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:45pm

True, though it also would have given them one more loss, so they would have been 1-3 instead of 0-2. Technically better, but yeah, the whole point is that once you start getting into all these relative statistics, things get weird quick.

Points: 0

#12 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:01pm

I'm curious how the Giant's variance rates.

Points: 0

#14 by Jerry // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:09pm

I wonder if these would be all-time top teams using the old multi-year baselines instead of the single-year one.

Points: 0

#17 by The Hypno-Toad // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:22pm

That's what I was trying to ask in the post below, but instead of my rambling idiocy, expressed concisely and intelligently.

Points: 0

#15 by The Hypno-Toad // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:13pm

Wasn't there a change in methodology during the off season? Something about normalizing to where average dvoa will always be zero for a given season? I am doing a very bad job of remembering/explaining what i'm talking about, but if there was a significant change in how dvoa is distributed/calculated, could that lead to teams popping up on "all-time" lists that would not have shown up on those lists under the old system?

Points: 0

#89 by intel_chris (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 4:14pm

I think the change in metrics (zeroing each seasons averages) should be considered when comparing teams from different years and that change renders such comparisons unreliable (incorrect). I think a professional statistician could even explain why this feature (assuming the mean of two disjoint samples is the same) distorts the underlying model.

For example, I would take (bet on) the 1998 Broncos (not even on the list) against the 2012 Broncos, not that this effects my feeling as a fan that this year's team is one of the better ones and a hopeful sign for the coming years. Of course, since we can't actually pit the two teams from different years against each other, other than in perhaps Madden or some other simulation, we certainly cannot directly validate the argument.

Still, in my humble opinion, there are differences in years that go beyond the evolution of the game. Something about this year caused the best teams to get separated substantially from the pack. There seems to be similar effect at the bottom also. I will leave it to the rest of you to explain what the cause of this effect is. However, I don't think that the reason is that the best teams of this year are simply among the historical best, unless you can back that up by either the old measurement that didn't introduce this statistical quirk into the numbers, or by some other independent confirmation.

Points: 0

#96 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 01, 2013 - 7:02pm

Actually, the change from DVOA v6.0 to DVOA v7.0 did very little to change teams' total DVOA ratings. What the normalization did was allow us to correct for the changes in the offensive environment over time, which makes it easier to compare offenses or defenses or specific positions without saying that Joe Flacco is better than John Elway simply because offensive levels are higher now than they were a dozen years ago. The average quarterback right now completes 60.9% of passes, with TDs on 4.3% of passes and INTs on 2.6% of passes. In 2000, those numbers were 58.2%, 3.7%, and 3.3%. Maybe some of that has to do with the quality of quarterbacks in today's game, but a lot of it has to do with rules changes and the development of certain offensive schemes. I don't think it is ridiculous to say that the 1999 Rams had a better offense than the 2012 Lions, but by the old version of DVOA, the 2012 Lions would have a higher offensive DVOA than the 1999 Rams. With the current version,they do not.

For each year, however, remember that offensive DVOA goes up the same amount that defensive DVOA goes up. There are slight differences for each team but in general, total DVOA ratings now are the same as they were before. For an example, check out the article where I first announced the new version of DVOA:

The exact same 10 teams that were the top 10 by DVOA v6.0 are also the top 10 by DVOA v7.0, not counting 2012 teams of course. There are just some slight changes in the order.

Remember also that the DVOA rating for the 1998 Broncos includes four games with Bubby Brister as the starting quarterback.

Points: 0

#98 by The Hypno-Toad // Jan 01, 2013 - 7:59pm

Thanks for the clarification, Aaron.

Points: 0

#101 by intel_chris (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 9:43pm

Yes, thank you that's actually an interesting point. So, you are saying without the renormalization the current teams would actually fare even better in comparative DVOAs. The fact that VOAs can be used to substantiate that comparison. I'll take that as independent confirmation.

I had missed the earlier article on DVOA 7.0 and it's discussion. While it still seems statistically suspect to me that normalizing means should improve the comparability, I think I am making an error by assuming that they are drawn from a uniform pool and neglecting the fact that the changes in the rules and thus how the game is played has a major effect. I should not be surprised that you have put significant effort into evaluating the change before implementing it.

Points: 0

#121 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 02, 2013 - 10:06am

I'm not saying that without re-normalization, the current teams would actually fare even better in TOTAL DVOA.

What I'm saying is that without re-normalization, the current teams would fare better in OFFENSIVE DVOA but would be worse in DEFENSIVE DVOA.

Points: 0

#99 by Karl Cuba // Jan 01, 2013 - 9:09pm

My take on this is that the teams at the top this year look so good because the league is deluged by dross. There are an unusual number of crappy teams that make the better teams look good.

Points: 0

#109 by Eggwasp (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:26am

You could have said that in the 80s. Those Bears had 6 sure wins in the NFC Central each year.

The main reason why we consider modern teams to be not as dominant as the great teams of the past is selective memory. Those blowout losses by great teams referenced above aren't part of the DVD collection. Our memories remember their great performances, capped usually by the SB wins, they don't remember the scrappy wins, the lucky wins, the disappointing losses. In ten years time, we'll have a similar selective memory about whoever takes the title this year.

Points: 0

#110 by Karl Cuba // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:45am

I'm not trying to make the deluge of dross case for the whole decade, just this year. Maybe it's a hangover from the increased player movement following the labour dispute (I think players tend to produce better when allowed to become acclimatised to one scheme) but it seemed like half the league was just awful. Take the harrowed AFC, there were three poor teams in the west, two in the South, two in the East and the miserable rabble that is Cleveland.

Aaron says that this years' poor teams weren't historically bad but that could be as a result of a plethora of dreck producing a higher baseline.

Points: 0

#112 by theslothook // Jan 02, 2013 - 4:55am

Im curious Karl, is there a particular part of the last decade you felt was much better than this year? These kinds of questions are impossibly difficult because we simply cannot separate quality from poverty.

There were no 7-9 or 8-8 teams. There were also very few 2-14. However one chooses to define parity, this year featured a number of good and balanced teams I think. Maybe the afc was watered down, but it features two extremely powerful teams while the nfc is full of treacherous clubs and plenty of depth to go around.

Points: 0

#151 by LionInAZ // Jan 02, 2013 - 4:51pm

I dunno, Karl. Is this year really worse than 2010, when *every* team in the NFC West had a losing record, there were two poor teams in the NFCE and NFCN, plus the miserable rabble that was Carolina? Some would say that year was much more shameful for producing a 7-9 division winner.

Points: 0

#153 by Karl Cuba // Jan 02, 2013 - 5:25pm

I'm not sure but 2010 is one of the years that also produced two of the best ever teams by DVOA.

Points: 0

#154 by LionInAZ // Jan 02, 2013 - 5:47pm

And the 2nd-worst playoff team ever by DVOA. Compare that to 2012, with 3 of the best ever teams by DVOA and the worst ever 11-5 team. I don't see much difference, except that in 2010 eight of the worst ten teams by DVOA were in the NFC, including all four NFC West teams.

Points: 0

#161 by Karl Cuba // Jan 02, 2013 - 7:45pm

Not sure what you're driving at, unless you're saying that 2010 was full of crappy teams too.

Points: 0

#181 by Karl Cuba // Jan 03, 2013 - 11:43am

Just noticed from listening to the BS podcast that 2004 also features two top teams and Aaron quotes that year as having a pile of awfullness too, in the NFC again. So those three years account for seven of the top 12, seems like quite a lot. Is top historical DVOA driven by having a plethora of bad teams that drive up decent teams in comparison?

If you look at the other five teams; 07 Pats, 91 Redskins, 96 Packers, 95 49ers and 92 Cowboys, then you have a pretty good list of the teams that most people would regard as some of the best of the last twenty years.

Points: 0

#142 by intel_chris (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:15pm

My feeling is something like this. However, I suspect there is some kind of analysis that could make the meaning of this crisper and clearer. Is it that was have a few worse bottom teams that are dragging everyone down? Is it that the general level of play on defense is worse than it used to be, as in our offenses simply generating more successful plays on average. Are certain kinds of plays more successful than they have been in the past? Are there fewer good teams, so the ones which are good seem to be so much better? Has the way that penalties are called changed the effectiveness of certain plays?

My reading of the DVOA 7.0 announcement posting is that the FO folks have noticed a long term trend for DVOA scores for the passing game to improve over time. That isn't surprising because the NFL has clearly found that the passing game is more exciting and have tried to encourage teams to use it by altering the rules to make it more effective. The NFL has also encouraged "parity" so that more teams should be competitive, i.e. the Giants and Cowboys (and other similar teams) cannot simply buy their way to titles--at least not as easily, since there clearly are still haves and have-nots. Those changes could have affected the questions I asked at the beginning in different ways. It would seem possible to determine what effects there have been. One of the things I like about this site, is that they do seem to ask and address these questions.

Finally, over time sports competitors simply improve, standing on the shoulders of giants. Once upon a time a 4 minute mile was considered an impossible achievement. Swimmers continually break records. Skaters regularly do tricks that would have once earned them an Olympic medal. Similarly, Joe Montana running the West Coast Offense was once a unique quarterback. Perhaps these days, he would simply be replacement level.

Points: 0

#148 by ChrisS (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:44pm

I think our perception of teams have changed since the eighties because free agency has destroyed the possibilty of dynasty teams. For exampleyou e great Steelers teams were remembered because they had continuity and we almost knew Swan and Green and Ham and Franco and ..... and considered them great players so the Steelers were a great team because they had great players.

Points: 0

#149 by ChrisS (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:48pm

No more responding from my phone. Tpyo Free Version. I think our perception of teams have changed since the eighties because free agency has destroyed the possibilty of dynasty teams. For example the great Steelers teams were remembered because they had continuity and we all knew Swan and Green and Ham and Franco and ... and they were all thought of as great players so the Steelers were a great team because they had great (well known) players.

Points: 0

#18 by MatMan // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:24pm

"...and went 3-9 in games decided by a touchdown or less."

Does that mean "6 points or less," or "7 points or less?"

Points: 0

#23 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:51pm

In this case, they mean 8 points or less (since the Lions lost by 8 to San Fransisco, and they seem to be counting that). Maybe a more accurate term would be "one possession games".

I would argue that the San Fransisco game should be taken out of this discussion, since at no point was Detroit even close to winning or tying.

Points: 0

#119 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 10:01am

I seem to recall that game started out at 0-0.

Points: 0

#123 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:20am

Of course all games start 0-0, but I meant towards the end of the game, which is what we're talking about when defining "close games".

Points: 0

#19 by Kal // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:27pm

One issue that comes up when talking about DVOA (and any opponent-weighed measure) is how 'telling' it is when you crush weak foes. This year we should be able to see that somewhat in spades; Seattle had one of the hardest schedules in the league and is highly ranked; Denver had the second-easiest schedule and is also highly ranked.

My gut tells me that Denver's a bit overrated, but also that Seattle is largely feasting on a few late-season big wins that mean more to DVOA than they should. But it'll be interesting to see.

Points: 0

#22 by G (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:49pm

I think the parity this year has been so strong; which is what makes these top 3 teams stand out on the all-time list of best DVOA ever recorded.

We're talking about a season where some of the all-time great records were threatened. AP goes for 2,000 yards, Rice's record falls, and some of the most dynamic rookie quaterbacks ever come into the NFL and light it up.

Not to crazy to me. Model affirmed ;)

Points: 0

#24 by G (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 6:52pm

Seattle didn't just come out of nowhere; they were routinely ranked in the top... 6? Before they went seahulk. The other thing about Seattle's late season dominance is it is clearly tied to a new offensive gameplan, so it's not as if there were fluky reasons for those games.

Points: 0

#25 by Kal // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:01pm

The Seahawks weren't rated that high until the midseason. Really, until the Bears game they were simply a good but not great team.

Points: 0

#30 by Perfundle // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:50pm

Well, the Bears game was after midseason; they were already a great DVOA team when they got to the Bears game. Here is their weekly DVOA ranking:

-4.1%, 16th, at Arizona
12.4%, 12th, Dallas
11.5%, 12th, Green Bay
15.0%, 11th, at St. Louis (?)
21.7%, 10th, at Carolina
23.5%, 7th, New England
21.7%, 8th, at San Francisco
20.3%, 9th, at Detroit
29.3%, 6th, Minnesota
33.1%, 3rd, NY Jets
34.4%, 4th, bye
30.7%, 4th, at Miami
31.9%, 4th, at Chicago
38.8%, 2nd, Arizona
38.5%, 2nd, at Buffalo
41.1%, 1st, San Francisco
38.3%, 1st, St. Louis

The large whack of DVOA increase was not because of the Chicago, Arizona, or SF games; they were top 5 and above 30% long before then.

Points: 0

#61 by Kal // Jan 01, 2013 - 2:03am

Actually we are both right. They went from being 20% to almost 30% after the Minnesota game (I have no idea why) and then another 10 point jump after the Chicago game. Wierd.

Points: 0

#62 by Insancipitory // Jan 01, 2013 - 2:13am

As I recall, in the second half of the Vikings game the Vikings hardly even touched the football, and the Seahawks just sort of effortlessly strolled away with it.

The Chicago game gives a big opponant adjustment to an offense that had iirc a 94, a 97 and 80 yard TD drives.

Then Arizona gets creamed, historically, in every phase of the game, with an adjustment from what DVOA considers to be the then #2 defense, without variables to account for confusion or quiting.

Just chains of big chunk plays against opponants DVOA respected

Points: 0

#144 by EricL // Jan 02, 2013 - 3:00pm

Correct regarding the Min/Sea game: With 10:24 left in the 3rd, Seattle got the ball on their own 28, up 20-17.

Of the 25:24 remaining in the game, Seattle had the ball for 20:12, spread over four drives, including the final 5:27 ending in a kneeldown on the Min 9.

Points: 0

#31 by formido // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:52pm

More recent results are more predictive so suggesting it's unfair that Seattle is being rated so highly for recent results is specious. If we were talking about a random results generator weighted smoothly throughout the season that'd be one thing, but we're talking about dynamic systems made of people and context matters. Anyone who follows the Seahawks knows that their rookie QB has played (has been allowed to play) much, MUCH better since the first month of season. Wilson leads the NFL in passer rating and QBR since week 6, I believe. Seattle implemented the read option at just the Chicago game and no one has stopped it, including St. Louis when Seattle started finally running those sets in the second half. In sports, some teams get better and some teams get better faster than everyone. This year that's Seattle.

Points: 0

#32 by Rowdy Roddy Piper // Dec 31, 2012 - 7:54pm

Any model that tells me last year's Falcons team was better than this year's could use some adjustment. Offense is better. Defense is definitely better.

Points: 0

#35 by Mountain Time … // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:28pm

You forgot to mention which subjective ranking system is way better than this, and you left out your unrelated comment with chat-acceptable spelling entirely.

Points: 0

#38 by bill (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:37pm

Hmm..the three worst teams to make playoffs (acc. to DVOA) all win.?
Still nothing wrong with your ranking system. You have Bal. rated way to high.
Indy WILL upset them this week. Making it 4 /4 for your worst rated playoff teams...#fadeFO

Points: 0

#53 by jonnyblazin // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:39pm

"You have Bal. rated way to high.
Indy WILL upset them this week. Making it 4 /4 for your worst rated playoff teams"

If its a certainty, then go bet every cent you own on it. You'll more than double your worth.

Points: 0

#93 by Cuenca Guy // Jan 01, 2013 - 5:30pm

Yes, because the 7-9 Seahawks (2010), 8-8 Rams (2004), and 9-7 Cardinals (1998) were such great teams. Any team can win on any given week. Indy might win this week, but the fact remains that this isn't a team that under normal circumstances would be 11-5.

Also, if you're going to bash DVOA, please use the format listed in the article.

Points: 0

#39 by anderson721 (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:39pm

Re the Colts: Without looking, I'm going to guess that no other playoff team got mauled by a losing team, as the Colts were by the Jets. And considering the Pats beat the Colts by 30 something points, it's very hard to argue that the Colts had better success against playoff teams.

Points: 0

#41 by Carlos12 (not verified) // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:53pm

Re the Colts: Without looking, I'm going to guess that no other playoff team got mauled by a losing team, as the Colts were by the Jets. And considering the Pats beat the Colts by 30 something points, it's very hard to argue that the Colts had better success against playoff teams.

The Ravens lost to the Eagles. I'm guessing no other playoff team lost to the Eagles.

The Patriots lost to Arizona at home. I'm guessing no other playoff team did that.

And considering you're talking about a 1 game sample size, it's impossible to even take your post seriously.

Points: 0

#48 by RickD // Dec 31, 2012 - 9:54pm

The argument was "no other playoff team got mauled by a losing team."

It wasn't "no other playoff team lost to team X".

The Patriots lost by 2 points to Arizona when a last-second FG attempt was missed. The Ravens lost by 1 point to the Eagles. Neither loss qualifies as "getting mauled."

If your point is "some playoff teams lost to different teams," that's neither terribly interesting nor relevant to the point you're replying to.

Points: 0

#60 by Andrew Potter // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:53am

I'm going to guess that no other playoff team got mauled by a losing team, as the Colts were by the Jets.

The 7-9 Buccaneers plundered the playoff Vikings in Minnesota, 36-17.

Points: 0

#108 by Bobman // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:56am

Great use of plunder.

I might as well pile on and point out that the Colts lost to Jax, though it was a last minute 80-yard reception that gave the Jags half of their season win total. The Colts had some stinkers, especially early, that's for sure. But the loss to Chicago, while not a playoff team, was to a team that was all but unbeatable in weeks 1-8. That team looked incredible.

I don't know where the 95 Colts fit in DVOA-wise, but the 2012 version feels a lot like them. The comeback wins are not just a product of the QB, but somehow the D that had been pushed around all game has tended to get stops at the end of all those close games, allowing Luck and Co to do their thing. Will they go to the AFCCG and lose because the ref missed Kordell Stewart stepping OB bfore catching a TD pass? (not that I'm bitter...) Not likely. But a first round win looks like a toss-up to me, if not to DVOA.

Points: 0

#134 by Perfundle // Jan 02, 2013 - 12:36pm

"But the loss to Chicago, while not a playoff team, was to a team that was all but unbeatable in weeks 1-8. That team looked incredible."

That team went 6-0 against teams that didn't have a winning record, including barely beating Detroit and Carolina at home, and crashed and burned against the only great team they faced, though crushing Indianapolis, even if it was Luck's first game, was pretty impressive. Their losses in the second half of the season? All to playoff teams. Looked at that way, they were incredibly consistent in their performance.

Points: 0

#189 by Spielman // Jan 04, 2013 - 11:46am

"The comeback wins are not just a product of the QB, but somehow the D that had been pushed around all game has tended to get stops at the end of all those close games, allowing Luck and Co to do their thing."

This seems like something that happens a *lot*. Team gets reasonably soundly beaten for most of the game. Then, late, the team that is winning turtles up on offense, and goes ultra-conservative, leading to some short possessions. Then they go into a prevent style defense as well, and all of a sudden the team that has been unable to move the ball the whole game is driving with seeming ease. And then, boom, it's suddenly a close game.

Points: 0

#64 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 01, 2013 - 6:08am

I'm going to guess that no other playoff team got mauled by a losing team.

Not true. Doesn't happen often, but it happens. Off the top of my head, I can remember the 1990 Bears finished 11-5, but lost to the 6-10 Lions 38-21 (The Bears were down 38-14 before scoring a garbage time touchdown. And just last year, the Tebow-Broncos (yeah, I know, not the best example) lost to the 6-10 Bills 40-14.

Points: 0

#69 by Arkaein // Jan 01, 2013 - 9:58am

And in 2010 the 14-2 Patriots lost to the 5-11 Browns 34-14 at mid-season. I remember this particular nugget because 20 points was the same as the combined margin of all 6 of GB's losses that year.

Points: 0

#83 by dmstorm22 // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:34pm

The 2006 Patriots lost 21-0 to the 5-11 Dolphins, and the 2003 Patriots even more infamously lost 31-0 to the 6-10 Bills.

Points: 0

#86 by JIPanick // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:50pm

Pretty sure he meant this year, not ever.

Points: 0

#87 by Andrew Potter // Jan 01, 2013 - 2:37pm

As am I. His guess is still wrong though.

Points: 0

#42 by Ben // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:54pm

I know I'm not following the proper format, but I have a hard time thinking of the Colts as worse than the 5 or so teams in front of them at this point in the season.

I know about the point differential. The Colts got blown out against the Bears week 1. When the Colts had a bunch of rookies, and Chicago had it's full defense. They also got blown out against the Pats (not that that is necessarily uncommon) with 3 return TDs. The certainly laid an egg against the Jets and played the Chiefs and Jags closer than they should have. It just seems like the by virtue of the Colts playing a lot of bottom feeders, there is a feedback loop where the Colts are bad for not beating them by a lot, but those teams don't get any credit for playing well, since it was against the Colts...

I have no problem with them being the lowest rated team in this years playoff, that's hard to argue against. It does seem odd that 3 other teams that have been worse than them historically all won their first game. If the Colts do too, it seems like there might be an issue with at least weighted DVOA, when it comes to playoff time.

Points: 0

#67 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Jan 01, 2013 - 9:35am

It's a tiny sample size, so I don't think it means much for DVOA. DVOA still correlates much better than win loss at predicting future winners, but we all know that sometimes (Reasonably often) the weaker team wins a game that you wouldn't expect them to win.

I mean, as a Broncos fan, I didn't expect the Tebow Broncos to beat the Steelers last year because the Steelers were clearly the better team by a large margin. It didn't mean that the Broncos were better than the Steelers, but that they played better for that game than their average game and the Steelers played worse. Sometimes it also means that maybe a team got a bit lucky with things like recovering fumbles.

Points: 0

#72 by Paddy Pat // Jan 01, 2013 - 11:38am

I've always assumed that there's a big psychological factor here. First of all, the crappy team usually feels like its playoff birth is a sort of miracle (how the hell did that happen?). This makes coaches less conservative, more inclined to go for forth downs, try for big plays, empty out the playbook, etc. Because hey, what have they got to lose? They're playing with house money. The opponent is also likely to look on the game as an easy win and thus underrate the weak team. When the stronger team falls behind there's a mixture of disbelief and complacency, and frequently a failure to adjust--Hey, we're better than they are; let's keep doing what we're doing and things will settle out. That was definitely the case last year with the Steelers. LeBeau just couldn't bring himself to adjust to Tebow's deep ball. Finally, the weak teams often play with an enormous chip on their shoulders because they know there's a funny sort of stigma that goes with being the team that doesn't belong.

I'm not saying any of that is predictive, but it seems to me to explain why the worst teams often win One playoff game--just one, mind you, and then get creamed the following weak.

Points: 0

#43 by theslothook // Dec 31, 2012 - 8:54pm

I didn't realize this because no one is talking about him, but by conventional statistics, does anyone realize how insane drew brees' numbers are and then the fact that he DIDN't MAKE THE PROBOWL? Despite completing only 63%, he again threw for over 5 thousand yards and led the league with 43 tds. If people really believe in conventional statistics, then Drew Brees is the mvp of football.

Points: 0

#49 by RickD // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:02pm

I think what kills his candidacy more than anything else are his 19 interceptions, which equals the sum of Brady's (8) and Manning's (11).

FO has Brees at #3 among QBs, but he's well behind the other two. He threw a lot of picks, and they hurt the Saints a lot.

Points: 0

#54 by theslothook // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:44pm

Oh I happen to hate most qb stats to begin with so I wasn't trying to pump up Brees or anything. I was merely showing how fickle fans and the media are when it comes to individual accolades or Qb lists. Drew brees by all rights had the same type of season he always has.

Drew brees throws alot, which helps him accumulate a lot of yards and td passes(i read a stat that showed he throws the most passes on the goal line than any other qb in the nfl).

Points: 0

#73 by Hummingbird Cyborg // Jan 01, 2013 - 11:38am

People realize that quarterbacks throw more in losses and rack up yardage that way. I think the perception is that's what happened in New Orleans.

Points: 0

#77 by dbostedo // Jan 01, 2013 - 12:15pm

Even given that, I'd guess that if they Saints were 12-4 and had won their division, and Brees had identical stats, you'd hear him talked about in the MVP race.

Points: 0

#88 by LionInAZ // Jan 01, 2013 - 3:52pm

Brees threw 681 times in 2010, 678 times in 2011, and 693 times this year. It's the offense, not the losses.
Strangely, he threw a lot fewer passes in the Super Bowl year.

Points: 0

#105 by Gomer_rs (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 2:23am

Of course Drew Brees threw a lot fewer passes in the super bowl year. Even overly pass crazy teams run the ball with the lead.

Points: 0

#139 by DRohan // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:46pm

The Saints went 13-3 in the Super Bowl season, and followed that up with 11-5 and 13-3, respectively in 2010 and 2011. I'm guessing they weren't playing from behind all that much more often in those two seasons.

Points: 0

#152 by LionInAZ // Jan 02, 2013 - 5:01pm

Exactly. I might also have included that Brees threw 645 passes in 2008. Throwing a lot of passes is the norm for Drew Brees, not the exception.

Points: 0

#44 by DisplacedPackerFan // Dec 31, 2012 - 9:32pm

So all the NFC North teams had positive DVOA, has a division finished the year with all the teams on the plus side before?

Points: 0

#76 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 01, 2013 - 12:11pm

Kind of on the same subject, did the Lions this year set the record for fewest wins for a team with a positive DVOA? I'm sure there have been a few teams with 5 wins.

Points: 0

#90 by LionInAZ // Jan 01, 2013 - 4:22pm

The Lions are the third 4-12 team to finish with positive DVOA, and not even the best. The 91 Chargers finished with +1.6% DVOA, while the 96 Ravens had +5.1%. That Baltimore team was 1st in offense and 29th in defense. No team with less than 4 wins finished positive.

Points: 0

#113 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 02, 2013 - 5:55am

Ah, thanks for looking that up. I remember that Chargers team losing close game after close game. The next year, Bobby Ross showed up and bad luck left, and they went 11-5.

That '96 Ravens team was bad, but man were they fun to watch.

Points: 0

#138 by Anonymouss (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:30pm

Not to change the subject, but for the colts haters, they beat 3 of those 4 nfc north teams.

Points: 0

#55 by theslothook // Dec 31, 2012 - 10:47pm

I also hate the interception stat. It tends to skew things so badly in so many ways. Guess what interceptions correlate strong with? Throwing a lot of deep and medium passes. Guess what else? Throwing when you're behind in the score?

Now, I fully recognize that throwing ints might have led to you having to throw from behind in the first place, but that aside, both of those factors are really circumstances that may be beyond the qb's control. After all, your defense shares a big responsibility for why you are behind and the scheme/receivers/running game also play a big factor in why you have to throw medium and deep so often.

Points: 0

#58 by Perfundle // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:07am

Interceptions gotten by throwing when you're behind in the score could very well be cancelled out by touchdowns gotten by throwing when you're behind in the score because the opposing defense is playing prevent, and getting those chances because the opposing offense is either complacent or trying to run out the clock; see the Patriots-49ers game and last year's Saints-Packers game for examples. It might or might not come out even in the end, but don't make it like throwing when behind has to lead to poorer stats.

Points: 0

#79 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:00pm

NE's offensive success against SF in the second half had very little to do with complacency.

It was three parts figuring them out (which they had already done long before SF ran out to a big lead, they just kept putting the ball on the ground) and one part Justin Smith leaving.

Points: 0

#120 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 02, 2013 - 10:05am

That would be why SF switched to a zone after smothering NE with man for the entire game?

Points: 0

#156 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 7:07pm


First off, if you check the game log, you'll see that NE was already moving the ball pretty comfortably, but put the ball on the ground after on long drive and had another where they dropped an easy first down. Credit SF for creating the turnovers, but only in the first quarter did they really "smother" NE.

Beyond that, the whole prevent thing is wildly overstated. A few analysts who reviewed the tape said that they didn't see much in the way of changes from SF, and certainly they weren't playing prevent once NE had gotten the ball back only down 31-17.

As I said before, NE's second half success was two parts figuring them out (which had already happened) and one part Justin Smith leaving the game. The zone/prevent discussion is misguided.

Points: 0

#163 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 9:38pm

So someone with a valid opposing view is a troll?

Man, the arrogance on this site is astounding. I've enjoyed FO since pretty much day one, and the comments used to be a place a real insight. Now it is pretty much a circle jerk of people who like to feel intellectually superior.

Points: 0

#165 by Will Allen // Jan 02, 2013 - 9:56pm

You may wish to examine your tone in your last post, and given yourself an irony-check. I say this as someone who is sympathetic to your view, at least in regard to the centrality of Justin Smith to the Niners' defensive performance.

Points: 0

#166 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 10:09pm

Mea Culpa on the tone, then. It wasn't my intention to ruffle any feathers (initially, at least ;-) ) just to try and point out that a lot more went into NE's offensive explosion that simply "SF stopped trying".

Points: 0

#174 by Karl Cuba // Jan 03, 2013 - 8:30am

I'm not sure that backing off into a safe zone is the same as stopping trying. I thought the niners miscalculated and got worn down by the Pats' no huddle and rapid tempo. They thought their lead was safe but that it wasn't is also a function of the Pats' abilities.

Points: 0

#175 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 9:42am

Fair enough. I just want to point out that the dominance in the first quarter seems to overshadow the fact that NE was finding success much earlier than it became clear on the scoreboard.

I've also heard whispers that NE feels like they found something for a possible rematch that makes them very confident in their chances.

Points: 0

#177 by Will Allen // Jan 03, 2013 - 10:11am

It pains me to say it, but I fear that unless Justin Smith can be Justin Smith, the Niners aren't getting that far. It's what I hate about football the most, beyond the toll the injuries take on the player's lives; who gets injured and when they get injured plays a gigantic role in who experiences ulitmate success.

Points: 0

#162 by theslothook // Jan 02, 2013 - 8:06pm

Actually, I charted this game. The big difference was a few things but notably, all of NE's td drives came off big plays. It should be noted that throughout that comeback, there were many times the pats were stuffed on first and second down before converting on third downs or 4th downs. They converted three 4th downs in their comeback- drives that might have ended otherwise. The big plays meant they didn't have to drive the length of the field. Again, we can read into these plays however we want, but it isn't like the machine of NE just ripped apart the defense. It was close, even the big plays were all very tough plays to execute. Two went to Lloyd despite being in terrific coverage. 1 Went to Houamanawanui of which he almost lost and was again in tight coverage. Another came on a ticky tack Pi penalty in the end zone. On two of the drives where they had the ball at the goal line. Again, these were tough plays which the pats executed but they weren't exactly specifically designed where brady looked off the defense and the receiver burned the corners.

Finally- the other big highlight was the fact that the 49ers pass rush virtually disappeared in the second half. ESPN's logs credit the 49ers with I think 2 or 3 total pressures before the second to last drive, both of which I remember were schemed by the 49ers to get free rushers in. Besides those, brady had forever and a day to sit back and wait for guys to get open. And finally, on the second to last drive, Ray Mcdonald annihilated Volmer and Wendell to get two back to back sacks(one went to Francois).

Again, the big difference between the 1st half and second half were big plays and pass rush. Hardly Ne figuring out sf and clobbering them.

Points: 0

#164 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 02, 2013 - 9:53pm

I don't contest anything you wrote, just your concusions.

The lack of pressure was primarily due to NE adjusting to SF's defense with a dash of Justin Smith's absence added in. I agree that big plays were a major factor, but that information doesn't contradict my post, it supplements it. Yours just goes into more detail about the approach.

I'll agree that the 4th down plays are an important factor. Had NE not been in such a dire situation, they may have punted on a few occasions. However, they may also have approached things differently if they didn't view every possession as 4 down territory.

The bigger issues that gets overlooked though, is that NE was moving the ball as early as their first possession in the second quarter. NE had a 16 play, 62 yard FG drive, followed by a 3 and out that was only short because a wide open Lloyd dropped an easy first down. NE's next possession was an easy 50 yard drive in 4 plays that ended with a Ridley fumble. 3 drives, 3 times NE moved the ball well (or only didn't due to their own error).

SF overwhelmed NE at first. But NE had caught up only to be undone by a couple mistakes, which SF did well to capitalize one. "Figured out" is simply shorthand for all of that.

Points: 0

#173 by Karl Cuba // Jan 03, 2013 - 8:23am

The disappearing 49er pass rush has slightly more to it than Justin Smith's absence. Aldon Smith has been struggling with a bad shoulder for over a month now and he wears down as the game goes on, though missing his bro from another mo does make it easier to chip and double him.

Points: 0

#176 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 9:43am

Thanks for the input, I wasn't aware of that.

Points: 0

#183 by coremill (not verified) // Jan 03, 2013 - 11:55am

Fatigue played a big factor too. The Niner offense went 3 and out 3 straight times and the SF defense ended up being on the field for 92 plays. During NE's comeback NE ran 35 plays in just over 18 minutes of elapsed game time. The pass rushers just started to run out of gas in the second half.

Points: 0

#140 by DRohan // Jan 02, 2013 - 1:50pm

I think using the eye test it was evident that Brees was not as sharp this season as in the past. I don't think the increased INT's were driven by situational effects.

Points: 0

#57 by rageon // Jan 01, 2013 - 12:31am

It really doesn't feel like this was the Bears best defense in the past ten years, does it?

Points: 0

#68 by Chip // Jan 01, 2013 - 9:53am

My thought exactly.

That said, they were so consistent in terms of success rate all year. Advanced NFL stats also has them as the #1 DEF by a decent margin as well. The #1 ratings on both sites were maintained week-to-week as well.

This team will miss Lovie.

Points: 0

#127 by Steve in WI // Jan 02, 2013 - 11:24am

I don't know. Looking back at the whole season, I can believe this was a great Bears defense. The only loss I'd put just as squarely on the defense as on the offense would be San Francisco...well, maybe Seattle, too. Every other loss, I'd argue that the defense either had a great game (Houston) or that the offense played so poorly that the defense was put in an impossible position (see the 2nd Minnesota game, where one touchdown was a returned Cutler interception that was in no way the fault of the defense, and another was set up by a Cutler interception that set Minnesota up in the red zone).

I think firing Lovie was ultimately the right move, but I'm basing that largely because I feel like a defensive meltdown is inevitable given how many great players are aging. Might as well bring in someone who can lead a good offense.

Points: 0

#59 by Ken Hoygan (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 1:12am

Bengals vs San Fran. The two are intertwined, quantum entanglement.

Points: 0

#63 by Paul M (not verified) // Jan 01, 2013 - 2:27am

We all know the recent low seed/WC history but I would be shocked if anyone other than DEN or NE comes out of the AFC. Indy is simply a substandard playoff team; the Bengals not a whole lot better; Baltimore living off the reputation of a fading defense; Houston nowhere near the team they were two or three months ago.

The fascinating aspect of this year's playoffs are the four NFC teams that might emerge to face off against Manning or Brady-- likely the two best QBs since Montana and very possibly two of the best five (or four, or three) QBs in history (and given the venue-- New Orleans-- don't you think Manning makes the most Hollywood sense??)

GB is the one NFC team that could win a shootout; SEA and SF are the two defenses that might be able to pressure Manning/Brady enough to cause a mistake or two or throw off the passing game; I can't for the life of me figure out how Atlanta can win, but maybe we'll all be fooled.

Would expect the AFC winner-- despite this being a pretty solid NFC dominant season, and the weird NFL wheel turning to the NFC (2007, 09-11 winners)-- to be at least a FG favorite but have to admit the game will be quite enticing no matter which of the 8 matchups occurs. Brady would be playing for greatest QB ever and maybe Belichick same for coach; Manning to surpass his boss and take down the #3 spot historically (or at least post Walsh and the installation of the West Coast offense); Rodgers to clearly occupy the top seat post-Brady/Manning; Ryan to gain true elite status; and Wilson and Kapernick just to have some fun. Can't wait.

Points: 0

#70 by jonnyblazin // Jan 01, 2013 - 11:03am

I think the Ravens and Bengals could do some damage to the top teams. The Ravens beat NE already this year. And the Bengals have the Giants blueprint of having a deep and talented D-line. They're also white hot (18% weighted DVOA vs. 6% total DVOA, plus the 3rd ranked D in weighted DVOA). Both are suited to cold weather, whereas the aerial attacks of the Pats and Broncos could suffer in cold/wind.

The Ravens are also the healthiest they've been all year, especially on defense. They should have Lewis and Ellerbe at full strength in the middle, Ngata has fought through his MCL strain and shoulder injury and seems to be rounding into form, Suggs took last week off to heal his biceps and achilles, and Pollard will return from his rib injury. It also seems like their OLB Kruger and Upshaw have found their roles, with Kruger becoming a very good pass rusher and Upshaw becoming a great run stopper. At no point in the season were all these players healthy and playing together.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Aaron
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and Aaron Schatz. Use promo code SCHATZ to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Aaron.