Final 2012 DVOA Ratings

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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):

2-1-5-3-6-4

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

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.

Ha, this point is brilliant! Well done.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Pretty sure he meant this year, not ever.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.