Week 10 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
The big news in this week's Football Outsiders DVOA ratings is the impact of the Rams' huge blowout upset of the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts, who were third overall in DVOA just a couple weeks ago, drop from fifth all the way down to 14th. That's a huge change at this point in the season; remember, because DVOA considers every single game, team ranks change much less each week compared to subjective "power rankings" which tend to overreact to a single game. Perhaps DVOA is overreacting to a single game as well, but when you add every single play of this game to every other single play the Colts have run this year... well, that's a lot of bad plays. The Rams, in turn, jump ten spots from 26th to 16th based on this one game. This isn't just about rankings changing because teams are bunched close together. Indianapolis' overall DVOA dropped from 20.2% to 3.6%, while St. Louis went from -13.2% to -2.9%.
With opponent adjustments, the Colts' single-game DVOA of -107.1% is the third-lowest of the season, trailing only Jacksonville in their 28-2 loss to Kansas City in Week 1 (-118.9% DVOA) and Oakland in last week's 49-20 loss to Philadelphia (-109.0% DVOA).
Most of the other teams stay in roughly the same places this week. Of course, Football Outsiders already had Carolina ranked third, so their win over San Francisco wasn't a huge surprise (it was our ESPN Upset Watch, after all) and the Panthers' overall DVOA only rises by 2.7%. In the NFC North, Detroit moves up while Green Bay and Chicago move down. In the NFC South, the Saints and Bucs move up while the Falcons move down. And just in case you were looking for more evidence of Football Outsiders' pro-Patriots bias, New England moves from 11th to seventh without even playing a game. In reality, the Patriots just moved up by a few tenths of a percentage point in DVOA because of changes in opponent adjustments; it helps a team's ranking when a few teams above you (Green Bay, Cincinnati, Indianapolis) lose during your bye week.
One split that's interesting to note is the split between the AFC and NFC. Going into this season, it certainly looked like the NFC was the clearly dominant conference. Early results went completely counter to this expectation. The AFC started 11-3 against the NFC in the first three weeks of the season. But a few weeks later, things have evened out. The AFC and NFC are now at 23-23 in interconference games, and the NFC dominance is once again showing itself in the DVOA rankings. Denver may be our top team, but NFC teams currently rank second through sixth. The NFC also has nine of the top 13 teams and 11 of the top 16 teams. The bottom eight teams all represent either the AFC or the NFC East.
I had someone from the Washington Post contact me to ask about Washington's playoff chances this year compared to last year when they were also 3-6 through nine games. The similarity between the two years is actually quite remarkable. Last year, we gave Washington a 4.5 percent chance to make the playoffs after Week 10. This year it's about half that, 2.1 percent, despite the fact that Washington is one game closer to first place in the division compared to a year ago. The difference is in total DVOA; Washington is 30th overall right now, compared to 21st overall last year at this time. But if we look at the rankings in each category, the differences aren't really that big. Last year at this time, Washington was 14th in offense, 23rd in defense, and 28th in special teams. This year, Washington is 15th in offense, 24th in defense, and 32nd in special teams. The difference between the two teams is almost entirely Washington's historically awful special teams performance -- which also is the unit most likely to improve in the second half of the season, since special teams performance is so much less consistent than offense or defense. As for schedule, a year ago we ranked Washington's remaining schedule 19th. This year, we rank Washington's remaining schedule... 19th.
BEST AND WORST DVOA EVER WATCH
Although Denver's overall DVOA rating is still number one, it's fallen quite a bit over the past few weeks. There are two reasons for that. First, with more information about how good teams are in 2013, it has become clear that the Broncos (along with the Chiefs and Chargers) have played a ridiculously easy schedule this season. Second, the Broncos have not matched their dominating victories of September in October and November. Their big Week 8 victory over Washington has a single-game DVOA of 69.8%, but they are below 10% in Weeks 5, 6, and 7, and just at 22.1% for this week's win over San Diego. The Broncos have now dropped off our list of the best total DVOA teams ever, which means we've dropped that table from our "Best and Worst Ever Watch." For those wondering, the Broncos are the 20th best team through Week 10 since 1989. The Broncos remain on the list for the best offensive DVOA ever. In addition, the Jaguars are still coming close to the worst DVOA ever despite their victory over Tennessee. One of the teams below them has a bit of an asterisk, as 1993 was the year with two bye weeks; the 1993 Buccaneers had only played eight games and were 2-6 after Week 10.
Meanwhile, we continue to see some of the worst special teams of all time from Washington, Houston, and the New York Giants. Mike Tanier wrote about that over at Sports on Earth a couple days ago.
| BEST OFFENSIVE DVOA THROUGH WEEK 10 |
x | WORST TOTAL DVOA THROUGH WEEK 10 |
x | WORST OFFENSIVE DVOA THROUGH WEEK 10 |
x | WORST SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA THROUGH WEEK 10 |
||||||||
| Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA | x | Year | Team | DVOA |
| 2007 | NE | 49.1% | x | 1993 | TB | -66.7% | x | 2005 | SF | -53.0% | x | 2010 | SD | -19.0% |
| 1999 | WAS | 42.6% | x | 2005 | SF | -65.6% | x | 2002 | HOU | -47.0% | x | 2008 | MIN | -14.9% |
| 1993 | DAL | 40.0% | x | 2013 | JAC | -62.3% | x | 2010 | CAR | -45.9% | x | 2013 | WAS | -14.2% |
| 1995 | DAL | 37.4% | x | 1996 | STL | -56.5% | x | 2013 | JAC | -44.5% | x | 1997 | PHI | -12.9% |
| 1998 | DEN | 36.4% | x | 2009 | DET | -56.4% | x | 1992 | SEA | -44.3% | x | 2011 | CAR | -12.2% |
| 2013 | DEN | 35.4% | x | 2008 | STL | -53.1% | x | 2007 | SF | -43.8% | x | 1995 | PHI | -12.2% |
| 2004 | IND | 34.7% | x | 2009 | OAK | -51.2% | x | 1996 | STL | -43.0% | x | 1997 | STL | -12.1% |
| 1993 | SF | 34.1% | x | 2002 | HOU | -50.5% | x | 2009 | OAK | -42.7% | x | 2013 | HOU | -11.8% |
| 2005 | SD | 33.9% | x | 2007 | SF | -50.3% | x | 1993 | TB | -41.2% | x | 2013 | NYG | -11.5% |
| 2002 | KC | 33.6% | x | 1991 | IND | -50.1% | x | 1992 | IND | -39.9% | x | 2006 | ARI | -10.7% |
| 2011 | GB | 33.5% | x | 2000 | CIN | -48.0% | x | 2006 | OAK | -39.7% | x | 2007 | IND | -10.2% |
| 2010 | NE | 33.0% | x | 1999 | CIN | -47.8% | x | 2009 | CLE | -38.6% | x | 1998 | OAK | -10.1% |
* * * * *
 |
During the 2013 season, we'll be partnering with EA Sports to bring special Football Outsiders-branded items to Madden 25 Ultimate Team. Each week, we'll be picking out a handful of players who starred in that week's games. Some of them will be well-known players who stood out in standard stats. Others will be under-the-radar players who only stood out with advanced stats, including DYAR, Defeats, and our game charting coverage stats for cornerbacks. We'll announce the players each Tuesday in the DVOA commentary article, and the players will be available in Madden Ultimate Team packs the following weekend, beginning Friday night.
The Football Outsiders stars for Week 10 are:
- Luke Kuechly, MLB, CAR (Limited Edition): 11 tackles, 4 Defeats, PD, sack.
- Davin Joseph, RG, TB: Tampa RB gained 87 yards on 11 carries listed as "right guard."
- Kevin Williams, DT, MIN: 1.5 sacks and 4 TFL on runs.
- Keenan Lewis, CB, NO: Limited Dez Bryant to just one catch.
- Shane Lechler, P, HOU: Seven punts averaging 58.9 gross yards.
Other players we considered (not including players such as Vinny Rey and Tavon Austin who were on Madden's "Team of the Week") included Drew Brees, Alvin Bailey, Jarrell Freeman, Lardarius Webb, and Chris Jones.
* * * * *
All 2013 stat pages are now updated or will be updated in the next few minutes, including snap counts, playoff odds, and the FO Premium database.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through ten weeks of 2013, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)
[ad placeholder 3]
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.
To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:
<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
WEIGHTED DVOA |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | DEN | 36.9% | 1 | 35.2% | 1 | 8-1 | 35.4% | 1 | 3.0% | 20 | 4.5% | 8 |
| 2 | SEA | 33.6% | 2 | 32.1% | 2 | 9-1 | 10.1% | 8 | -16.8% | 3 | 6.8% | 2 |
| 3 | CAR | 28.7% | 3 | 31.3% | 3 | 6-3 | 7.6% | 10 | -19.8% | 1 | 1.3% | 15 |
| 4 | NO | 23.2% | 7 | 24.8% | 4 | 7-2 | 21.7% | 2 | -3.7% | 12 | -2.2% | 23 |
| 5 | CHI | 20.5% | 4 | 20.1% | 5 | 5-4 | 14.0% | 6 | -3.1% | 13 | 3.4% | 10 |
| 6 | SF | 15.0% | 6 | 17.0% | 6 | 6-3 | 8.8% | 9 | -5.0% | 11 | 1.2% | 16 |
| 7 | NE | 13.7% | 11 | 14.5% | 7 | 7-2 | 2.2% | 14 | -5.3% | 10 | 6.2% | 5 |
| 8 | KC | 13.0% | 9 | 12.1% | 9 | 9-0 | -3.4% | 18 | -10.2% | 7 | 6.2% | 4 |
| 9 | CIN | 12.2% | 8 | 12.5% | 8 | 6-4 | -2.6% | 17 | -11.8% | 4 | 3.0% | 11 |
| 10 | DET | 8.5% | 13 | 9.2% | 10 | 6-3 | 13.6% | 7 | 2.6% | 19 | -2.5% | 24 |
| 11 | DAL | 6.6% | 12 | 7.2% | 11 | 5-5 | 6.5% | 12 | 7.2% | 23 | 7.2% | 1 |
| 12 | ARI | 6.2% | 14 | 7.1% | 12 | 5-4 | -13.0% | 27 | -19.5% | 2 | -0.4% | 20 |
| 13 | GB | 5.5% | 10 | 4.2% | 13 | 5-4 | 19.7% | 4 | 11.1% | 29 | -3.1% | 26 |
| 14 | IND | 3.6% | 5 | 3.4% | 14 | 6-3 | 6.1% | 13 | 3.0% | 21 | 0.5% | 18 |
| 15 | PHI | 3.6% | 16 | 3.0% | 15 | 5-5 | 16.7% | 5 | 10.3% | 28 | -2.8% | 25 |
| 16 | STL | -2.9% | 26 | -3.0% | 16 | 4-6 | -10.2% | 26 | -1.7% | 15 | 5.6% | 6 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
WEIGHTED DVOA |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | SD | -3.4% | 15 | -3.6% | 18 | 4-5 | 20.3% | 3 | 22.9% | 32 | -0.8% | 21 |
| 18 | MIA | -3.8% | 17 | -5.1% | 19 | 4-5 | -3.6% | 19 | -1.6% | 16 | -1.9% | 22 |
| 19 | NYJ | -4.3% | 19 | -3.3% | 17 | 5-4 | -21.7% | 30 | -11.2% | 5 | 6.3% | 3 |
| 20 | TB | -5.0% | 23 | -6.1% | 20 | 1-8 | -7.5% | 22 | -1.9% | 14 | 0.6% | 17 |
| 21 | PIT | -6.4% | 24 | -6.1% | 21 | 3-6 | 0.8% | 16 | 9.1% | 27 | 1.9% | 13 |
| 22 | ATL | -6.9% | 18 | -8.7% | 25 | 2-7 | 6.9% | 11 | 13.4% | 30 | -0.3% | 19 |
| 23 | BAL | -7.5% | 21 | -6.4% | 22 | 4-5 | -20.1% | 29 | -10.4% | 6 | 2.2% | 12 |
| 24 | MIN | -8.4% | 25 | -7.8% | 23 | 2-7 | -5.5% | 21 | 8.4% | 25 | 5.5% | 7 |
| 25 | BUF | -8.9% | 20 | -11.9% | 27 | 3-7 | -9.7% | 25 | -5.9% | 9 | -5.2% | 28 |
| 26 | CLE | -10.1% | 22 | -7.9% | 24 | 4-5 | -9.4% | 24 | 5.2% | 22 | 4.5% | 9 |
| 27 | TEN | -11.3% | 27 | -11.3% | 26 | 4-5 | -5.3% | 20 | -1.1% | 17 | -7.1% | 29 |
| 28 | NYG | -19.9% | 30 | -19.2% | 28 | 3-6 | -14.7% | 28 | -6.2% | 8 | -11.5% | 30 |
| 29 | HOU | -21.1% | 29 | -22.1% | 30 | 2-7 | -8.8% | 23 | 0.4% | 18 | -11.8% | 31 |
| 30 | WAS | -21.4% | 28 | -19.8% | 29 | 3-6 | 0.9% | 15 | 8.1% | 24 | -14.2% | 32 |
| 31 | OAK | -35.9% | 31 | -36.3% | 31 | 3-6 | -23.3% | 31 | 9.1% | 26 | -3.6% | 27 |
| 32 | JAC | -62.3% | 32 | -60.5% | 32 | 1-8 | -44.5% | 32 | 19.4% | 31 | 1.6% | 14 |
- NON-ADJUSTED TOTAL DVOA does not include the adjustments for opponent strength or the adjustments for weather and altitude in special teams, and only penalizes offenses for lost fumbles rather than all fumbles.
- ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
- PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance. Teams are ranked from most consistent (#1, lowest variance) to least consistent (#32, highest variance).
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 1 | DEN | 36.9% | 8-1 | 49.1% | 9.4 | 1 | -15.2% | 31 | -4.6% | 22 | 10.1% | 16 |
| 2 | SEA | 33.6% | 9-1 | 35.9% | 7.9 | 2 | -5.6% | 28 | 2.2% | 11 | 11.8% | 21 |
| 3 | CAR | 28.7% | 6-3 | 31.4% | 7.2 | 3 | 0.3% | 18 | 5.7% | 5 | 9.9% | 15 |
| 4 | NO | 23.2% | 7-2 | 27.7% | 6.6 | 6 | 2.0% | 12 | 13.0% | 2 | 12.6% | 23 |
| 5 | CHI | 20.5% | 5-4 | 15.7% | 7.0 | 4 | 0.2% | 19 | -1.9% | 20 | 8.7% | 13 |
| 6 | SF | 15.0% | 6-3 | 12.7% | 5.7 | 13 | -2.2% | 23 | 3.8% | 8 | 18.9% | 28 |
| 7 | NE | 13.7% | 7-2 | 16.3% | 6.5 | 7 | -0.5% | 20 | 2.0% | 13 | 4.3% | 1 |
| 8 | KC | 13.0% | 9-0 | 27.0% | 6.6 | 5 | -17.7% | 32 | 1.9% | 15 | 4.8% | 3 |
| 9 | CIN | 12.2% | 6-4 | 15.8% | 6.2 | 9 | 0.7% | 16 | -5.4% | 24 | 14.2% | 25 |
| 10 | DET | 8.5% | 6-3 | 8.5% | 6.0 | 12 | 3.5% | 9 | -5.4% | 25 | 6.1% | 5 |
| 11 | DAL | 6.6% | 5-5 | 5.2% | 6.0 | 11 | 2.9% | 10 | -7.9% | 27 | 11.7% | 20 |
| 12 | ARI | 6.2% | 5-4 | -0.5% | 6.2 | 8 | 8.1% | 3 | -3.0% | 21 | 7.0% | 8 |
| 13 | GB | 5.5% | 5-4 | 8.8% | 5.6 | 15 | 1.4% | 14 | -0.9% | 18 | 10.2% | 18 |
| 14 | IND | 3.6% | 6-3 | 5.6% | 5.7 | 14 | -4.9% | 27 | -10.6% | 30 | 26.2% | 31 |
| 15 | PHI | 3.6% | 5-5 | 6.3% | 6.1 | 10 | -4.4% | 26 | 2.0% | 14 | 30.0% | 32 |
| 16 | STL | -2.9% | 4-6 | -3.5% | 4.0 | 24 | -0.8% | 22 | 15.6% | 1 | 22.4% | 29 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 17 | SD | -3.4% | 4-5 | 0.2% | 4.4 | 18 | -11.3% | 30 | 2.2% | 10 | 4.5% | 2 |
| 18 | MIA | -3.8% | 4-5 | -2.1% | 4.3 | 20 | 1.6% | 13 | 2.2% | 12 | 12.4% | 22 |
| 19 | NYJ | -4.3% | 5-4 | -6.4% | 4.9 | 16 | 2.7% | 11 | -5.9% | 26 | 22.4% | 30 |
| 20 | TB | -5.0% | 1-8 | -10.8% | 3.7 | 25 | 10.5% | 1 | 8.1% | 4 | 6.2% | 6 |
| 21 | PIT | -6.4% | 3-6 | -7.4% | 4.1 | 23 | -3.3% | 24 | -0.7% | 17 | 6.6% | 7 |
| 22 | ATL | -6.9% | 2-7 | -15.2% | 4.7 | 17 | 9.9% | 2 | 5.3% | 6 | 7.0% | 9 |
| 23 | BAL | -7.5% | 4-5 | -6.2% | 4.2 | 21 | -0.6% | 21 | 5.1% | 7 | 8.7% | 12 |
| 24 | MIN | -8.4% | 2-7 | -7.5% | 4.2 | 22 | 1.3% | 15 | 10.9% | 3 | 7.9% | 11 |
| 25 | BUF | -8.9% | 3-7 | -9.1% | 4.3 | 19 | 5.9% | 5 | -11.4% | 31 | 14.0% | 24 |
| 26 | CLE | -10.1% | 4-5 | -4.4% | 3.7 | 26 | 0.4% | 17 | -4.7% | 23 | 9.4% | 14 |
| 27 | TEN | -11.3% | 4-5 | -2.2% | 3.5 | 27 | -4.3% | 25 | -9.8% | 29 | 7.5% | 10 |
| 28 | NYG | -19.9% | 3-6 | -28.6% | 2.7 | 30 | 7.6% | 4 | 1.1% | 16 | 15.0% | 27 |
| 29 | HOU | -21.1% | 2-7 | -21.4% | 3.1 | 28 | 5.2% | 7 | -16.8% | 32 | 14.6% | 26 |
| 30 | WAS | -21.4% | 3-6 | -22.6% | 2.9 | 29 | 3.8% | 8 | -1.2% | 19 | 5.4% | 4 |
| 31 | OAK | -35.9% | 3-6 | -27.7% | 1.5 | 31 | -6.2% | 29 | 2.4% | 9 | 11.0% | 19 |
| 32 | JAC | -62.3% | 1-8 | -60.6% | 0.2 | 32 | 5.4% | 6 | -9.0% | 28 | 10.2% | 17 |
Comments
97 comments, Last at 18 Feb 2015, 12:41pm
#7 by herewegobrowni… (not verified) // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:20pm
As has been mentioned, each game to date for them is considered 1.111111.... games because of the bye week, so it is considered 9.4-0.6, on a 10-game basis.
Obligatory question about why the Brownies dropped so much from opponent adjustments or whatever (you'd think the fact that they've played Baltimore twice and Cincy once would mean Baltimore's win benefits them; granted, I wonder what the individual-game DVOA was like from that Sunday matchup given the crazy ending.)
#19 by JIPanick // Nov 12, 2013 - 7:08pm
How precipitous are we talking about? Their DVOA rating dropped something like 6%.
Basically, they went from being the bottom rung of a Cincy/New England/SFO/KC peer group to being one of the stronger members of a Detroit/Philly/Arizona peer group.
It's hard to see because the Scott Tolzien Experience torpedoed the Packers and the Colts are in DVOA free fall, but that's actually a pretty big hit in spite of moving from #12 to #11.
#9 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:29pm
Eh, you could also say they're couple of breaks away from being 7-2, if you want to be fair (the 2nd loss to Detroit and the loss to Washington were very close).
But I agree with you that DVOA likes the Bears more than my eyes do. It's been discussed before, but they get a lot of credit for their performance after they were trailing by 24 and 16 points vs. Detroit and New Orleans respectively, late in the 4th quarter. "Garbage time" performance is supposed to be predictive of future results, but many (including myself) remain skeptical.
I still think the Bears (when healthy) are a good team, I'm not sure they're 5th best in the league, though.
#23 by Scott Kacsmar // Nov 12, 2013 - 7:50pm
I'm wondering if teams who do well in garbage time are just good teams having bad days, so good future results speak to the quality of team more than any of the meaningless numbers they put up that day.
If you're down big late and don't do anything, then there's a good chance you're a garbage team like the Jaguars this year. I never get anywhere on garbage-time studies because it's such a hindsight thing. You never know when that touchdown in a 21-point game in the fourth quarter could actually spark a nail-biting finish. If a team has to recover an onside kick to clinch a one-score win, I don't think we can call any of what went down as garbage time.
#75 by RoninX (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 12:24pm
The usual argument is that "garbage time" defense does not necessarily reflect "normal" defense. That said I don't think there was any real garbage time (whatever your definition) in the Detroit game.
Of course the second part of the argument is certainly valid: if you can't move the ball when a team goes into a prevent than you probably are a terrible offensive team.
#10 by Kevin M (not verified) // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:30pm
I honestly cannot imagine what the 2 teams with worse Special Teams ratings than the Giants look like. The Giants cannot cover kicks or punts, their punter is playing horribly, and the kicker's two misses were extremely costly (especially in KC game). Add in that they got a punt blocked last week and they can't do a single thing well.
#15 by EricL // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:47pm
You and me both. Facing a good defense on a 10am start makes fans worry.
Maybe it'll come down to those special teams. Part of the reason why Seattle is ranked #2 in ST? Golden Tate is averaging 13+ yards per punt return. Seattle is allowing 1.5 yards in punt returns per GAME.
#12 by Perfundle // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:42pm
Two misses? That's it? Washington's kicker has had 4 misses in only 11 tries, and Houston's has a whopping 9 misses in 23 tries. Also, while NY's kick coverage is bad, at least their kicker gets touchbacks a lot. Washington's kicker has the worst kicking distance, and he's resorting to pooch kickoffs at times.
#14 by RickD // Nov 12, 2013 - 6:47pm
Oh, the Redskins are worse.
They had a fake punt call last week where the guy who was supposed to catch the pass missed the call and just flew downfield. Pass went futilely in his direction while he never looked back.
Of course, that was called back for a false start. They then made a 40-something yard punt with huge return combined with another penalty, all of which ended up netting the defense 5 or so yards in field position from the original 4th down line of scrimmage.
The talk in DC this week has been to bring in Marv Levy to take over the special teams' coaching. Yes, 88-year old Marv Levy. I honestly thought he was dead.
#20 by 3Monkies (not verified) // Nov 12, 2013 - 7:17pm
Just wondering how much playing JAX has impacted the teams that have played them...
For example if KC, Den, etc. had played a more traditional bad team like Vikings that still would have been a likely win, instead of playing JAX would their DVOA be measurably higher?
#22 by Bay Area Bengal (not verified) // Nov 12, 2013 - 7:42pm
If I recall correctly, in the past, playoff-bound Bengals teams typically had winning records despite sporting mediocre-to-below-average DVOA. It was no surprise, then, that we always lost in the first round of the post-season.
This year, we sport a good-to-"elite" DVOA despite dropping horrible, terrible losses to awful teams.
I'm not sure which is worse, but I guess I'll go with this year's performance, as it fills me with false hope of a deep playoff run. And hey, at least it's different.
#49 by PaddyPat // Nov 13, 2013 - 5:37am
Current projections imply a first round home game for Cincy against the Jets. A win there would send them to Denver, where I imagine they lose. Would you consider that deep? Seems to me that Marvin finally has some stability there for you guys. A postseason win is a step in the right direction. Do you think they can continue to build into the future?
#87 by Bay Area Bengal (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 6:05pm
"Building into the future" and "Mike Brown" are fundamentally incompatible, I think.
I genuinely don't know what to think about Marvin Lewis, to be honest. During his tenure, the Bengals have gone from punchline to punchy underdog to mediocre to consistent contender. Is that because of his coaching? Or despite it? I mean, Cleveland continues to be cursed by God, and the Bengals haven't so much asserted dominance in their division as much as they've managed a reasonable amount of production while Pittsburgh and Baltimore have collapsed.
Certainly, the past two-and-half seasons have been successful in large part due to our strong defense. Zimmer's been the defensive coach since 2008, so while I credit his schemes, I think that a large part of the credit also has to be due to our ability to nab undervalued assets like Geno Atkins and Adam Jones for bargain bin prices, and getting great production out of mid-late round picks like Michael Johnson. What happens when Zimmer ultimately leaves for a head coaching position? What happens if we have an off-year in drafting and free agency?
I'm also concerned about our offense. Dalton was seemingly progressing as a passer through the first half of the season, but has taken some big steps back along with our entire offense. Simply put, we just have too much talent on our offense to underperform as consistently as we do. Does Gruden call bad plays because of Dalton's limitations? Or does Dalton struggle because Gruden call bad plays? I'm not really sure.
At the outset of the season, I felt like we had enough depth to let a guy like Michael Johnson go in free agency and replace him with someone else. I felt like Dalton was good enough for the next few years, with the possibility of us grooming competition/replacement for him with a late-round pick. I felt like Zimmer could go and we'd find another strong candidate to replace him.
But now I'm wondering if losing Zimmer and making a couple bad selections in the draft has us bottom-feeding again for the next 10 years.
#25 by panthersnbraves // Nov 12, 2013 - 7:54pm
On the Special Superbowl list - I thought the John Fox Reunion (Den-Car) was supposed to be on there? Or did I misunderstand?
I wonder what is the earliest a team has locked up at least a Wildcard? Due to the several divisions being quite level/mediocre, it seems like someone could be putting a little x by their name really soon...
#70 by Chappy (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 11:36am
Agreed. I'd also like to make a request for any Super Bowl match-up that involves Detroit.
I know they are probably not the strongest playoff contender out there, but it would be nice to see some odds on a matchup since they have never really sniffed a Super Bowl (maybe 1991 if you're being generous). They could call it "48 Year-Old Virgin: The Legend of Gary Danielson" and put their chances off playing Cleveland.
#58 by Buck B (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 9:38am
Well, look at point ratio (PF/PA) instead of net points (PF-PA). If you have a great defense and you are up by 10, that's a lot. Over 9 games, KC has allowed 1.9 points per game in the 4th quarter.
Part of the reason KC points allowed stat is league-leading is that the opponents have taken 11 snaps at the KC 1 and on those plays, KC has outscored them 7-0.
#68 by Perfundle // Nov 13, 2013 - 11:31am
Kansas City's PF include an entirely unsustainable number of defensive touchdowns. When those disappear against better opponents, the problems with the offense will be more evident, as we saw last year with Chicago.
#86 by Anonymous homer (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 5:25pm
Why is that "unsustainable"? It's not like it has never been done before. Seems to me it's like hitting home runs. If a guy can do it, it's not guaranteed he will hit one every time, but you come to expect a big swing and aren't shocked when it happens. Every team practices getting turnovers and emphasizes not turning it over. Is it really that "unsustainable?" You guys like all these numbers, what are the numbers on points off of turnovers? That would be interesting to see trends and streaks. Don't you think?
#90 by 3Monkies (not verified) // Nov 14, 2013 - 7:47am
Essentially you are hoping that Peyton, Brady, Luck, etc make turnovers at the same rate of Jeff Tuel.... This is highly unlikely, and a prime reason why teams that play some version of "Martyball" (conservative offense that relies on defensive turnovers) usually fades when they start facing quality QBs.
#95 by Buck B (not verified) // Nov 16, 2013 - 10:04am
It makes no difference to the fact that DEN has been giving up the ball (rates or counts) and KC has been taking it away. So, if you think KC will not win the TO battle with DEN because KC hasn't played Peyton Manning yet then that's just a random thought, it seems to me.
Let's see... how did Denver's season end last year? Oh yeah. That was ugly.
#34 by nat // Nov 12, 2013 - 9:38pm
It would be interesting to see if having better drive stats than VOA is predictive. Or whether good drive stats are as predictive as VOA.
One difficulty is that drive stats aren't adjusted for opponent. So you'd have to use VOA instead of the more predictive DVOA.
#32 by Paul R // Nov 12, 2013 - 9:31pm
The expectation for the Colts this year was that they would regress to the mean and finish in the middle of the pack, but this is a pretty spectacular way to do it. Like a race car with an average speed of 100mph because it goes 200mph for half the race and then explodes.
#45 by Bobman // Nov 13, 2013 - 2:18am
I laughed despite myself. That, and I hate you.
I don't think they exploded, and in practical terms, they picked a great week and opponent for a pantsing--everybody else important to their seeding except NE lost, and it was an NFC opponent (while CIN lost to MIA, TEN lost to JAX for example). Their OL and run game have always been suspect; now instead of merely arousing suspicion, they're running through the neighborhood waving an Uzi and a pillowcase stuffed with watches and quoting Ted Kaczinski through a megaphone.
Their previously good fumble luck equalized a bit--better now than in a playoff game! Luck had a horrid day, but his super-low rate of turnovers was not sustainable for a guy his age in his situation (crappy OL, missing last year's top 2 receivers, no real run support). I'd rather have him crap the bed all at once with 4 turnovers in a single blowout loss to an NFC team than two each in close losses to AFC teams. I suspect they'll right their ship somewhat and take advantage of the easy schedule. Still should finish no lower than 11-5 and may steal a playoff win. Not bad for a team with more half-ambulatory "humans" on the roster than a George Romero movie. Plus like 1/3 their team this week will be 1st or second year players.
And who the hell returns a punt 98 yards (or fields it at his own 2?!?!)
Last week's game COULD be like the 2006 mortifying loss against the Jags--I wonder how much they plummeted based on that game? They managed to turn things around after that. I wonder if Bob Sanders and Rob Morris are still available.... I suspect that after that 2006 turnaround, the 2-14 season, and last year, most Colts fans are not too panicky.
And this just in: Somehow Robert Mathis is on track to become the Colts all-time leading sacker and break the NFL single-season record this year. That would be quite a year for the D, despite other flaws.
#55 by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 8:53am
This alludes to a point I was planning to post. While the Colts DVOA dropped a ton, their playoff odds only took a relatively small hit. The biggest reason, as stated, was that Tennessee also lost.
Strictly from a bottom line perspective, it can be argued that Tennessee's loss to Jacksonville was more damaging than the Colts loss to STL. The Colts just happened to do it in a much more spectacular fashion. But if the Colts beat Tennessee this week, they'll have a stranglehold on the division.
#76 by CharlieBear (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 12:29pm
"Last week's game COULD be like the 2006 mortifying loss against the Jags--I wonder how much they plummeted based on that game?"
I checked! Hardly at all, apparently: the Colts dropped from 23.9 DVOA to 22.7, from #5 to #6.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2006/week-13-dvoa-ratings
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2006/week-14-dvoa-ratings
#36 by wps5 (not verified) // Nov 12, 2013 - 9:49pm
It's pretty interesting to see that the four AFC West teams have the four easiest past schedules. I'm assuming it's due to the number of opponents from the AFC South and NFC East, who look to be competing for worst division bragging rights. Has one division ever had a collective schedule through 10 weeks (or longer) as easy as this before?
#44 by An Onymous (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 1:41am
In 2010 the NFC West sent a 7-9 team to the playoffs as division champion. Their teams ranked 24th, 27th, 30th, and 32nd in DVOA that year, and thanks to schedules that guaranteed them all 6 games against each other, their season-ending SoS ranked 28th, 30th, 31st, and 32nd. Only KC (with the 29th ranked schedule) managed to sneak in and break up the clean sweep, thanks in large part to playing 4 games of its own against the NFC West. KC had just 10 wins in the previous 3 seasons combined, but they parlayed that 29th ranked schedule into a 10-6 finish and a surprise division championship.
#65 by CBPodge // Nov 13, 2013 - 10:51am
Opponent adjustments possibly? Denver's schedule has involved games against a lot of mediocre to terrible offenses. If I remember correctly, this is the first week where opponent adjustments are at full strength (I seem to remember they start at 40% strenght in week 4), so the bump from a good (but not amazing) game against a good offense might be worth less than the hit for those other games against bad offenses now been adjusted by 10% more.
#79 by Perfundle // Nov 13, 2013 - 12:54pm
DVOA doesn't care about points as much as the process involved in getting them. It looks like San Diego has plenty of long-sustained drives. That they mostly didn't pay off with a touchdown is only a secondary concern, because on balance these drives do. They also had a very healthy 3rd-down conversion rate, and Denver only forced one fumble and no interceptions.
#53 by bucko (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 7:30am
The numbers certainly jibe with what a Packer fan sees on the field. The defense can handle a team with an awful qb but gets embarrassed when there is competent play at qb by the opposition. Tramon Williams looks to be officially done as he can only cover if allowed to hold a la al harris. davon house alternates between overmatched and competent. And the safeties have been mostly awful. Toss in no pass rush and it gets very ugly very fast.
Folks in GB are asking why Ted Thompson isn't calling Kerry Rhodes agent. Gotta confess I am wondering that myself.
Boy has this defense fallen on its face since Nick Collins got hurt and had to retire. It's been 2 plus years now and Dom Capers/Ted Thompson still cannot get things sorted out.
#67 by justanothersteve // Nov 13, 2013 - 11:16am
You astutely point out one of the big problems lately with the Packers lately, their inability to find a Pro Bowl caliber safety. Not only have Packers fans had stability at QB for the last 20 years, they've had it at free safety. FS is usually the QB of the defense, or at least the secondary and the Packers have seamlessly gone from Butler to Sharper to Collins with only a short term drop off as each got up to speed, even when the other safety was bad like Manuel or Bigby. Burnett, McMillian, and Jennings are all various degrees of mediocre. I like TT, but sometimes his avoidance of veteran help is frustrating.
#78 by Perfundle // Nov 13, 2013 - 12:32pm
"Boy has this defense fallen on its face since Nick Collins got hurt and had to retire. It's been 2 plus years now and Dom Capers/Ted Thompson still cannot get things sorted out."
Well, the pass defense was very good last year, although I gather that Williams wasn't good then either.
#60 by Anonymous homer (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 10:15am
6-3 Carolina five spots better than 9-0 Chiefs. I guess the key is road games against Buffalo. Carolina lost; Chiefs won...Panthers clearly better. These metrics seem to be too weighted on early expectations. We think you are bad so you can't really be good. Just don't see the whole consistent weak schedule argument working out. To quote the old SNL skit, "I'm just a caveman, these modern ways confuse me." I will just stick with old Parcells. "You are what your record says you are." 9-0 is better than 6-3. There that wasn't so hard was it.
#62 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Nov 13, 2013 - 10:33am
"[Kansas City] is clearly ranked [too low] because [they beat a team that a team ranked higher than them lost to]. [Win-loss record] is way better than this. [Bill Parcells' wisdom is way better than DVOA]"
There. Fixed it for ya.
#71 by 3Monkies (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 11:48am
KC Fan...
DVOA, Vegas Sportsbooks and other statistical analytical sites do not respect KC as an elite team. They are 7.5 point underdogs at Denver and would even be an underdog if the game was at home.
Jeff Tuel and Jason Campbell are much different competition than Peyton Manning
#80 by Isaic (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 1:34pm
Oh, I want to try:
The San Diego Chargers is clearly ranked too low because They were the Eagle's Home-opener opponent. 3-year coincidences is way better than this. You obviosly have a deep seaded haerd of the color light blue!
#81 by Jeff M. (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 2:23pm
Really excited to see Alvin Bailey mentioned as a consideration for team of the week. He definitely seemed to outplay McQuistan to my eyes. I'd love if Ben Muth could write something about him and Michael Bowie (who's been starting at RT in Giacomini's absence)--have the Seahawks discovered two diamonds in the rough (UDFA and 7th, respectively) in their rookie OTs, and will those guys be able to fill the holes next year for FAs McQ and Giaco?
#82 by JM (not verified) // Nov 13, 2013 - 2:50pm
One of the most surprising things I've noticed is that the Giants defense has been sneaky-good for a while and seemingly getting better throughout the year. A pity that they're still a turnover machine and apparently cover kicks like a pee-wee football team.
#96 by Befuddled (not verified) // Nov 16, 2013 - 12:50pm
Even as a Bears fan, I'm stunned as to how Chi can be ranked 5th overall and a full five spots better than a team who has defeated them twice this season. We can't stop the run, nor can we run the ball consistently.
I hope F.O. is right abt us, because there's no way in my mind we have a 40% chance of making the playoffs.
F.O. definitely is out in front on Carolina, though. So many of these experts are claiming N.E. wins this week. No Vollmer + immobile Brady + Johnson, Hardy, and Lotulelei = death.