Week 12 DVOA Ratings

Week 12 DVOA Ratings
Week 12 DVOA Ratings
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Aaron Schatz

The NFL this year is being dominated by four specific NFC teams, one in each division. So when one of those teams beats another one, in convincing fashion, it's going to have a major effect on the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings.

A week ago, the Rams dropped from first to fourth after a loss to the Minnesota Vikings. This week, they're back in first place after a win over the New Orleans Saints that was not as close as the final 26-20 score. Los Angeles gets 83.7% DVOA for this game, narrowly surpassing Week 7's 33-0 shutout of Arizona as the Rams' top DVOA performance of the year.

This game comes out as one of the top five single-game performances of the year by any team. Using current opponent adjustments, the Rams have three of the top ten games, more than any other team. (The Week 1 win over Indianapolis is the third.) The top two games of the year both came back in Week 3: Jacksonville's 44-7 dismantling of Baltimore (102.7%) and New Orleans going on the road to clobber Carolina 34-13 (94.5%). By the way, those NFC South rivals will play the rematch this Sunday, and your humble commentator will be reporting from the Superdome in person thanks to a fortuitous bit of midseason vacation planning.

The fourth of the dominant NFC teams is Philadelphia, of course, which currently owns the league's best record at 10-1. The Rams may be back in the top spot this week but it's just barely over the Eagles, by one-tenth of a percentage point, and the Eagles are still No. 1 in Weighted DVOA which drops the strength of September games. The Eagles have not yet clinched a postseason berth but they only miss the playoffs in ONE of our 50,000 playoff odds simulations this week.

The Rams will complete a run of playing the other three big NFC teams when they host the Eagles next week. Unless there's a major change in the DVOA ratings next week, the Week 14 Eagles at Rams contest will give us a DVOA Bowl for the third straight season, a midseason matchup of No. 1 and No. 2. Last year, the Week 12 DVOA Bowl between Seattle and Philadelphia was the start of the Eagles' late-season collapse. The year before, the Seahawks and Cardinals faced off in Week 17 but the DVOA Bowl became pointless when the Cardinals, their playoff seeding assured, sat starters at halftime.

The top AFC teams are not as good as the top NFC teams this year, but they present much more interesting imbalance. The most shocking move in the DVOA ratings this week has Baltimore moving up two spots to No. 6, passing both Jacksonville and New England. Although their win over Houston was close, the Ravens improve their DVOA in all three phases of the game this week, and they were already No. 1 in both defense and special teams last week.

(I've written plenty about the Patriots and why our system seems to underrate them, most recently last week, so we'll go without that whole explanation today. The Patriots do climb to 29th in defense this week, but the Saints pass them to take over the No. 1 spot on offense.)

Baltimore and Jacksonville are No. 1 and No. 2 in defensive DVOA, and both teams are powered by historically great pass defense. Vincent Verhei wrote a couple weeks ago in Quick Reads about the wide spread between this year's best and worst pass defenses, and the strong effect that's having on opponent adjustments for quarterbacks. Unfortunately, I don't have an easily accessible "DVOA as of Week X" document that lists pass and run splits, the way I have a document with total offense and defense that I often quote. But with only five games remaining, it's safer now to compare these teams to the best pass defenses ever measured by DVOA. Right now, Jacksonville would finish the year with the second-best pass defense since 2000, trailing only the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Jaguars have improved on run defense since trading for Marcell Dareus, so they are now 24th against the run, but that's enough to drop them behind Baltimore in overall defense because the Ravens are tenth against the run.

The Ravens would also rank among the dozen best pass defenses in DVOA history if the season ended today. Yes, there is an asterisk on that, because the Ravens have been lucky enough to face backup quarterbacks in a number of games. They've faced both Tom Savage and Brett Hundley, giving them a boost when the opponent adjustments for those teams are partially based on games with Aaron Rodgers and Deshaun Watson. The Ravens also faced EJ Manuel instead of Derek Carr when they played Oakland. This is going to be an issue with a number of teams this year. It's reasonable to think that the effect of backup quarterbacks on the opponent adjustments might be entirely responsible for putting the Ravens ahead of the Patriots in DVOA right now; you might remember that Watson played one of his best games of the season against the Patriots in Week 3. It's not going to be an issue with comparing Baltimore to Pittsburgh, at least by the end of the season. Pittsburgh also faced Green Bay with Hundley, and they will face Houston with Savage in Week 16. On the other hand, both Cincinnati and Seattle had to play both Green Bay with Rodgers and Houston with Watson... but Seattle gets the benefit of facing Arizona twice without Carson Palmer. You can see where this starts to get complicated, as I explained a week ago.

Year Team DVOA x Year Team DVOA
2002 TB -51.9% x 2015 NO 48.1%
1991 PHI -48.6% x 1996 BAL 42.0%
1986 CHI -40.8% x 2017 (11 G) OAK 41.9%
1988 MIN -38.8% x 1999 SF 41.7%
2017 (11 G) JAC -36.6% x 1996 ATL 38.0%
2009 NYJ -36.5% x 2017 (11 G) MIA 37.2%
2004 BUF -34.7% x 2009 DET 36.5%
2013 SEA -34.2% x 1989 DAL 36.4%
1991 NO -33.1% x 2016 DET 36.2%
2008 PIT -32.8% x 2009 JAC 35.8%
1999 TB -32.2% x 1991 LARM 35.4%
2017 (11 G) BAL -31.2% x 2000 MIN 35.2%

On the other side of the ledger, we've got some of the worst pass defenses of all-time playing right now as well. Oakland and Miami would both rank among the six worst DVOA pass defenses if the season ended now. These bad ratings are driven more by a lack of interceptions than by historically poor yardage allowed. In fact, neither Oakland (7.1) nor Miami (6.9) is last in the league in net yards per pass allowed. Tampa Bay is last at 7.6 net yards per pass, and their 33.6% pass defense DVOA would also rank among the 20 worst all-time. But the interception thing is kind of amazing. Oakland got its first interception of the year this week against Paxton Lynch. The Dolphins have only four interceptions, even after picking off Tom Brady once. (The Falcons also have four, but an above-average 6.2 net yards per pass allowed.) The all-time record for fewest picks in a 16-game season is four by the winless 2008 Lions. The 2005 Raiders had five. A few teams in recent years have had just six, including the 2015 Ravens and three teams in 2014 (Jets, Chiefs, and Jaguars).

The other issue for the Raiders is that they've put up this horrific pass defense despite playing one of the league's easiest schedules of opposing offenses, featuring the Broncos, Ravens, and the lousy non-Patriots offenses of the AFC East. At least the Dolphins have played a tough schedule: powerful NFC South offenses, and while they're in the AFC East, they haven't played the Bills yet and of course they can't play themselves.

While we're on the subject of the Miami Dolphins, there's one other area where the 2017 NFL season is seeing some mind-blowing, historic failure: ground games. For a while this year, four different offenses found themselves in danger of finishing among the ten worst running games in DVOA history. The Lions and Chargers have improved a bit in recent weeks, but the Dolphins and Cardinals are still down there. If the season ended today, they would rank as two of the three worst run offenses we've ever measured.

[ad placeholder 3]

Year Team DVOA
2017 (11 G) ARI -34.1%
1991 IND -30.2%
2017 (11 G) MIA -31.2%
2005 ARI -29.1%
2002 HOU -27.4%
2013 BAL -27.2%
2013 JAC -27.1%
2016 LARM -26.6%
1986 NE -26.5%
1995 ARI -25.1%
2015 WAS -23.5%
2016 MIN -23.3%

Arizona's problem is a league-worst 3.05 yards per carry, including weird plays such as kneeldowns and aborted snaps. (If we count only actual runs, Arizona is at a league-worst 3.24 yards per carry.) An average of 3.05 yards per carry would be one of the ten worst figures since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger, and the worst average since the 2000 Chargers averaged 3.03 yards per carry. The lowest average for any team in the 21st century -- remember, 2000 is technically still the 20th century -- belonged to the 2013 Ravens at 3.14 yards per carry.

Miami is averaging 3.6 yards per carry, which is a bit better, but the Dolphins have been horrible at situational running. Their 42 percent success rate running on third and fourth downs ranks 24th in the league, but weirder is the fact that they have only ONE rushing touchdown this season. And weirder than that, it wasn't a short run in the red zone. It was a 66-yard run by Kenyan Drake against Carolina in Week 10, scored when losing 31-13. No team since 1970 has finished a season with only one rushing touchdown. Three teams managed only two: 1972 Eagles, 1995 Jets, and 2005 Cardinals.

* * * * *

Once again this season, we have teamed up with EA Sports to bring Football Outsiders-branded player content to Madden 18. This year, our content for Madden Ultimate Team on consoles comes monthly, while our content for Madden Mobile comes weekly. Come back to each Tuesday's DVOA commentary article for a list of players who stood out during the previous weekend's games. Those players will get special Madden Mobile items branded as "Powerline, powered by Football Outsiders," beginning at 11am Eastern on Friday. Our stars for Week 12 are:

  • LB Frank Zombo, KC (HERO): 3 run TFL, two of which were on third downs, plus another tackle on a 2-yard gain to prevent third-down conversion.
  • DE Eric Lee, NE: 2 run tackles to prevent third-down conversions, sack, plus created a sack for Trey Flowers by bull-rushing Miami RT Sam Young.
  • HB Joe Mixon, CIN: No. 2 in RB DYAR for Week 12; 23 carries, 114 yards, TD vs. NFL's No. 2 run defense, plus 51 receiving yards on 3 catches.
  • LB Alex Ogletree, LARM: 7 combined tackles, 3 of which prevented third-down conversions, plus PD.
  • G Wes Schweitzer, ATL: Falcons had no sacks, RB had 7 carries, 42 yards, 86% success rate to the right.

* * * * *

All stats pages should now be updated through Week 12, including snap counts, playoff odds, and the FO Premium DVOA database.

* * * * *

[ad placeholder 4]

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through 12 weeks of 2017, 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.

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 LARM 35.7% 4 38.2% 2 8-3 14.2% 7 -13.4% 5 8.1% 2
2 PHI 35.6% 1 39.4% 1 10-1 15.8% 3 -16.7% 3 3.1% 10
3 NO 32.3% 2 33.9% 3 8-3 27.5% 1 -6.4% 10 -1.7% 21
4 PIT 29.3% 3 29.0% 4 9-2 15.0% 5 -13.7% 4 0.6% 14
5 MIN 23.8% 5 24.7% 5 9-2 15.6% 4 -8.9% 6 -0.7% 18
6 BAL 19.0% 8 21.1% 6 6-5 -14.7% 26 -24.4% 1 9.3% 1
7 NE 17.4% 6 19.5% 7 9-2 26.0% 2 13.9% 29 5.2% 7
8 JAC 12.5% 7 11.9% 8 7-4 -4.0% 20 -21.6% 2 -5.1% 26
9 CAR 11.3% 9 11.5% 9 8-3 -2.6% 18 -7.8% 7 6.1% 4
10 KC 9.3% 10 3.6% 16 6-5 12.2% 8 8.6% 24 5.7% 6
11 SEA 8.7% 12 10.0% 10 7-4 1.0% 16 -7.7% 8 0.1% 16
12 DET 8.3% 11 6.0% 11 6-5 1.9% 14 0.5% 19 6.9% 3
13 WAS 7.7% 13 5.2% 13 5-6 5.7% 12 -4.2% 13 -2.2% 23
14 GB 4.9% 14 4.6% 14 5-6 5.3% 13 -0.1% 17 -0.5% 17
15 ATL 3.4% 17 3.6% 15 7-4 14.2% 6 9.9% 26 -0.9% 19
16 LACH 3.3% 16 6.0% 12 5-6 8.3% 10 -4.6% 12 -9.7% 32
17 DAL -0.3% 15 -0.2% 17 5-6 7.5% 11 13.6% 28 5.8% 5
18 HOU -2.6% 18 -5.6% 18 4-7 -2.6% 19 -2.1% 15 -2.1% 22
19 OAK -6.7% 21 -6.0% 19 5-6 11.7% 9 19.8% 32 1.4% 13
20 CIN -7.6% 20 -8.3% 20 5-6 -6.9% 21 -0.2% 16 -0.9% 20
21 BUF -8.8% 23 -12.2% 23 6-5 -13.3% 24 0.4% 18 4.9% 8
22 TEN -9.9% 19 -11.7% 22 7-4 -2.0% 17 9.4% 25 1.4% 12
23 ARI -12.7% 26 -10.1% 21 5-6 -13.8% 25 -6.9% 9 -5.8% 27
24 TB -16.4% 25 -18.3% 26 4-7 1.7% 15 14.7% 30 -3.4% 25
25 NYJ -16.4% 27 -15.4% 24 4-7 -9.7% 23 4.5% 21 -2.2% 24
26 CHI -19.1% 22 -17.4% 25 3-8 -15.6% 27 -2.4% 14 -5.9% 28
27 DEN -19.2% 24 -22.4% 27 3-8 -16.8% 29 -5.9% 11 -8.3% 31
28 NYG -23.0% 28 -22.7% 28 2-9 -7.2% 22 8.4% 22 -7.5% 30
29 SF -25.7% 29 -25.7% 30 1-10 -16.0% 28 12.6% 27 3.0% 11
30 IND -28.1% 31 -25.1% 29 3-8 -23.5% 32 8.6% 23 4.0% 9
31 CLE -29.9% 30 -27.1% 31 0-11 -23.0% 31 0.9% 20 -6.0% 29
32 MIA -35.5% 32 -36.2% 32 4-7 -20.9% 30 15.2% 31 0.5% 15
  • 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).

1 LARM 35.7% 8-3 33.8% 8.4 4 -0.7% 16 -0.8% 18 17.3% 27
2 PHI 35.6% 10-1 39.2% 9.0 2 -5.5% 28 2.9% 13 12.7% 21
3 NO 32.3% 8-3 27.0% 9.6 1 2.7% 9 -7.7% 26 10.0% 12
4 PIT 29.3% 9-2 31.9% 8.4 5 -1.5% 18 -0.7% 17 11.0% 13
5 MIN 23.8% 9-2 19.5% 8.4 3 7.3% 3 -1.4% 19 4.9% 2
6 BAL 19.0% 6-5 23.5% 6.4 9 -3.7% 25 -5.6% 23 20.9% 31
7 NE 17.4% 9-2 21.0% 6.8 6 -3.4% 23 -8.0% 27 9.0% 10
8 JAC 12.5% 7-4 17.0% 6.1 13 -1.8% 19 -11.5% 29 26.5% 32
9 CAR 11.3% 8-3 12.6% 6.8 7 -2.3% 21 9.6% 5 5.4% 5
10 KC 9.3% 6-5 8.3% 6.7 8 3.0% 7 -14.9% 32 17.0% 26
11 SEA 8.7% 7-4 17.8% 6.2 12 -6.9% 31 14.1% 2 5.4% 4
12 DET 8.3% 6-5 2.8% 6.4 10 4.0% 6 -3.8% 21 3.5% 1
13 WAS 7.7% 5-6 -1.4% 5.7 16 11.4% 2 -10.4% 28 11.6% 18
14 GB 4.9% 5-6 -2.2% 6.3 11 7.2% 4 -0.6% 16 6.8% 8
15 ATL 3.4% 7-4 9.4% 6.0 14 -4.2% 26 16.7% 1 5.2% 3
16 LACH 3.3% 5-6 10.8% 5.0 22 -3.4% 24 -7.2% 25 9.0% 9
17 DAL -0.3% 5-6 -0.8% 5.8 15 1.8% 12 4.4% 10 19.2% 29
18 HOU -2.6% 4-7 -5.7% 5.1 19 1.3% 14 -4.4% 22 16.7% 25
19 OAK -6.7% 5-6 -0.8% 5.1 20 -4.8% 27 5.0% 8 13.5% 23
20 CIN -7.6% 5-6 -4.2% 5.2 17 -5.7% 29 12.3% 3 14.1% 24
21 BUF -8.8% 6-5 -6.1% 5.0 21 -2.1% 20 -12.8% 31 18.9% 28
22 TEN -9.9% 7-4 -4.6% 5.2 18 -6.3% 30 1.4% 14 19.4% 30
23 ARI -12.7% 5-6 -12.8% 3.8 23 0.2% 15 3.8% 11 11.8% 20
24 TB -16.4% 4-7 -12.9% 3.7 25 -2.5% 22 12.1% 4 9.1% 11
25 NYJ -16.4% 4-7 -8.2% 3.8 24 -8.8% 32 8.6% 6 11.1% 14
26 CHI -19.1% 3-8 -28.4% 3.6 26 14.2% 1 -6.2% 24 11.6% 16
27 DEN -19.2% 3-8 -14.2% 3.5 27 1.4% 13 -12.6% 30 13.5% 22
28 NYG -23.0% 2-9 -24.3% 2.9 28 4.3% 5 4.7% 9 11.3% 15
29 SF -25.7% 1-10 -26.7% 2.3 29 2.8% 8 3.3% 12 6.6% 7
30 IND -28.1% 3-8 -26.6% 2.3 30 -1.1% 17 0.2% 15 11.6% 17
31 CLE -29.9% 0-11 -33.4% 2.2 32 1.9% 11 7.5% 7 11.8% 19
32 MIA -35.5% 4-7 -32.9% 2.2 31 1.9% 10 -2.0% 20 6.5% 6


101 comments, Last at 02 Dec 2017, 10:13am

#1 by RickD // Nov 28, 2017 - 6:49pm

Wondering what is worse: being 0-11 or being 4-7 at the bottom of the DVOA table.

Points: 0

#7 by johonny // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:18pm

From a fan perspective 4-7 seems worse because Miami's front office seems to be in denial. Whereas Cleveland's 0-11 we're told is part of the "plan".

Points: 0

#23 by techvet // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:19pm

0-11 will get your name head on stage, as in "With the first pick of the 2018 NFL draft, the Cleveland Browns select..."

Points: 0

#2 by RickD // Nov 28, 2017 - 6:57pm

Struggling to get a handle on the Case Keenum situation.

Points: 0

#3 by big10freak // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:08pm

I have seen this before. This is a confluence of the player playing well, the player surrounded by excellent players and the player experiencing good fortune.

Keenum is doing a fantastic job of finding the first good option and getting the ball away.

His receivers are very good and are making all the players. The offensive line is playing well. The playcalling is above average

The last part is that Keenum is throwing 2-5 passes a game that could/should be intercepted but are not. He scrambles, gets tackled, ball comes loose and he grabs it as he falls to the ground.

I am glad for the guy as he has been through the school of hard knocks and learned how to survive. Now Keenum is in a great situation and leveraging it tremendously.

But if one or more of the above changes the change in performance could be dramatic. I suspect most Vikings fans anticipate it cratering in the NFC Championship game with the Vikes up by 2 touchdowns, driving for the clinching score and then all that is bright and glorious turning dark and empty turning their joy to sorrow.

Anyway, that's my hope.

Points: 0

#8 by Will Allen // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:22pm

May your cheese curds become rancid......

Ok, now that this is out of the way, I mostly agree. What he does well he does very well, and in a very friendly environment,it makes up for the fact that he really doesn't have much of an arm by NFL starting qb standards. The Vikings defense has been very good, but they will need to crank it up to great, in the next two months, to fully account for that.

Points: 0

#9 by big10freak // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:27pm

Keenum's 2017 is Erik Kramer 1995 redux. Each time I see him play I see Kramer ducking the rush and getting the ball to Jeff Graham or Curtis Conway.

Points: 0

#10 by Will Allen // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:41pm

Hey, are the Madison Faithful as offended as I imagine, by how many paid yappers think it is a forgone conclusion that the Buckeyes being favored by 6 is correct? Sure it would be no surprise at all if the Buckeyes win, but nobody should be complacent about a team that had Iowa serve a fifty burger on them. If the Badgers qb avoids the fugue states he occasionally enters, I think Bucky prevails.

Points: 0

#21 by big10freak // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:01pm

Hornibrook's interceptions thing is overstated. He has a slew of young receivers who if you go through the picks have contributed to at least a third. More concerning is that when he gets hit he has gotten lucky in that fumbles have been recovered by Wisky. Taylor is also putting the ball on the ground too frequently.

The Achilles heel of the Badger defense is the deep pass. WI depends on the pass rush to negate, but if a qb gets the time the Badger dbs will be in trail position more often than not. That is how PSU got the upperhand in last year's game.

Buckeyes return game is really good. Hoping WI coverage is up to the task.

My stance is that the contest is WI's consistently very good play versus the Buckeyes ability to play at a super high level while also being capable of laying a stinker. Given what is at stake I anticipate the former versus the latter for the Buckeyes.

Points: 0

#17 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:43pm

Good analogy, but I have soft spot in my heart for Kramer, since he delivered the Lions’ only playoff win in the Super Bowl era.

But yea, we’ve seen this before....journeyman career backup has one great year. Steve DeBerg 1990, Chris Chandler 1998, Steve Beuerlein 1999, Damon (or Brock? I can’t keep them straight) Huard 2006, Josh McCown in half of 2013.

Now that the division title is out of reach for my team, I’m kind of rooting for Keenum. In Hard Knocks ‘16, and season 2 of All or Nothing, he and his wife seem like genuine, down to earth people.

Points: 0

#79 by TomC // Nov 29, 2017 - 3:03pm

Keenum's 2017 is Erik Kramer 1995 redux. Each time I see him play I see Kramer ducking the rush and getting the ball to Jeff Graham or Curtis Conway.

Thank you for that memory. That stretch of games was magical for this Bears fan. Quite honestly, it's the only time I've ever had complete confidence in a Bears offense, and I've been watching for 40 years. It didn't even last a whole season, and the defense was terrible enough that they only won a little over half the games in that stretch, but I loved every minute of it.

At the very least, Kramer was a much more aesthetically pleasing QB than Keenum. He threw a beautiful spiral, even when it went to the wrong team.

Points: 0

#46 by Mike B. In Va // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:37am

Witness a couple of guys looking pretty good for the Bears in recent seasons (McCown, Hoyer) and playing like, well, crap, after that.

Points: 0

#14 by Will Allen // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:25pm

I do think Keenum gets the ball out much more quickly than Cassell, and uses his feet much more effectively.

Points: 0

#28 by RickD // Nov 28, 2017 - 11:20pm

Cassel never sniffed the top of the DVOA ratings.

Points: 0

#44 by jmaron // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:13am

Brady 2007 54.1 DVOA, Cassel 2008 1.1 DVOA, Brady 2009 40.4

Moss 2007 28.9, 2008 2.3, 2009 22.3

Hell, in his rookie year Bridgewater outperformed Cassel -16.9 to -40.4

Points: 0

#45 by theslothook // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:22am

I think the Cassel surprise really happened in the second half. Check out the second half scoring from the Patriots in 2008.

Points: 0

#4 by andrew // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:12pm

In the superbowl scenarios, as it is gonna be probably enough to show up on radar, i propose calling a New England vs Minnesota Superbowl the

"Pete Carroll without Pete Carroll Bowl"

Points: 0

#5 by DezBailey // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:13pm

The Week 12 BES Rankings went out this morning - http://besreport.com/week-12-bes-rankings-2017/

The BES really differs with DVOA this week on the top 5. Philly still holds the No. 1 spot in the BES for a second week with the Vikings ranked No. 2. The Patriots, Steelers and Rams round out the top-5 in the BES.

Points: 0

#6 by Will Allen // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:14pm

The Vikings have soundly whipped 3 teams in the top 6, all at home, and have been soundly whipped by one in the top 6, on the road, in Keenum's 1st start. The disparity between the Rams DVOA and Vikings DVOA comes down to special teams, which my eyes agree with.

To state the obvious, it would be huge for them to get HFA.

Points: 0

#33 by Hextall_27 // Nov 29, 2017 - 12:56am

They will have to win at Atlanta, Carolina, and Green Bay with a revenge minded Rodgers in order to get that HFA.

Points: 0

#58 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:33am

Yes, they will have difficult road games in Atlanta and Carolina. Good teams win difficult road games, so just like the Eagles next two games in Seattle and at Rams, we will learn some things, although the Seahawks injuries on defense lessens the challenge.

The revenge angle for Rodgers really doesn't mean much, in my view. If he is recovered, and the Packers are still contending for a playoff spot, it will be a challenge, because Rodgers is great, and the rest of the team pretty good. When the Vikings have had decent teams, and decent health, they have competed just fine at Lambeau, and when they have had more talent and/or health than the Packers, they tend to win at Lambeau. The Rodgers era has just coincided with the Vikings having a fair number of years without much talent. That isn't the case this year.

Points: 0

#49 by andrew // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:50am

Despite their wins over top competition including the Rams, the Rams remain well ahead of them...

I am reminded of the FO article that identified Stomps, Guts, Skates and Dominates, Stomps (good teams thoroughly beating (by 14 or more) bad teams) as being more indicative of greatness than Guts (good teams barely beating good teams) or even "Dominates" (Good teams solidly beating good teams (by 14 or more)). as a reminder, stomps and dominates are wins over bad (sub .500) teams and good (over .500) by 14 or more, while guts and skates are the same except by 1-8 points. So...

If we take the season as if it ended now, here is how the wins of the top NFC teams break down:

Stomps: 5 (Cards, 49ers, Broncos, Cowboys, Bears)
Dominates: 0
Guts: 1 (Panthers)
Skates: 2 (GIants, Chargers)

Stomps: 2 (Bucs, Browns)
Dominates: 1 (Rams)
Guts: 2 (Ravens, Lions). (Ravens win was only by 8 due to last play of game, was dominate prior to that)
Skates: 2 (Bears, Redskins).

Stomps: 4 (Colts, Cards, Giants, Texans)
Dominates: 0
Guts: 1 (Saints)
Skates: 2 (49ers, Cowboys)

Stomps: 2 (Fins, Bucs)
Dominates: 3 (Panthers, Lions, Bills)
Guts: 0
Skates: 1 (Redskins)

Stomps: 3 (49ers, Bucs, Fins)
Dominates: 0
Guts: 4 (Bills, Patriots, Lions, Falcons)
Skates: 1 (Jets)

So... what can we see here?

Stomps: Eagles 5, Rams 4, Panthers 3, Saints/Vikings 2
Dominates: Saints 3, Vikings 1, Eagles/Panthers/Rams 0
Guts: Panthers 4 (!), Vikings 2, Rams/Eagles 1, Saints 0
Skates: Eagles/Rams/Vikings 2, Saints/Panthers 1

The Bucs are very stompable

Points: 0

#51 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:06am

You missed the Vikings domination of the Saints.

Points: 0

#55 by ammek // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:28am

The win over New Orleans was by 10 points so it doesn't fit in any of these categories, which I've never much liked anyway. On a single-game basis, margin of victory isn't a very useful number: the Vikings were two missed kicks away from beating Detroit by 11 instead of 7, for example. It makes much more sense, here on this site, to use DVOA.

I think it's worth highlighting Minnesota's low variance and difficult schedule vis-à-vis the other top teams. It has been super consistent, and it's quite a feat to go 9-2 against the third-ranked schedule, especially as IIRC it has only needed one game winning drive (against the Bears of all teams). Have the Vikings trailed in the second half at all in any of their wins?

Points: 0

#59 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:43am

If I remember correctly, no, and like most well coached teams, especially ones with good offensive lines (still feels really strange to type those words in a post about the Vikings), they seem to make sound half time adjustments.

Points: 0

#62 by andrew // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:05am

Yes. For four minutes and 18 seconds in the third quarter, they trailed the Browns 15-16.

Points: 0

#63 by andrew // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:07am

Yes. For the first minute and 28 seconds at the start of the second half, they trailed the Browns 12-13. Later that quarter they also trailed them 15-16 for four minutes and 18 seconds.

Points: 0

#66 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:25am

Forgot about that one. I dvred that one, and watched it in about a half hour.

Points: 0

#64 by ammek // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:11am

To reinforce my point about Minnesota's variance, here's a list of teams since the divisional realignment who have finished in the top quartile (ie, top 8) in DVOA for both offense and defense, and in the top quartile for (lowest) variance:

2005 Colts: 3rd offense, 5th defense, 1st variance
2012 Broncos: 2nd, 5th, 4th
2014 Broncos: 3rd, 4th, 4th

The 2017 Vikings are currently 4th, 6th, 2nd. Very similar to the others. It's illustrious company to be keeping, even if the postseason proved disappointing for all three of those teams. They each reached the superbowl the following season, of course, so if Forbath shanks a field goal in the last minute of a playoff game this coming January, or if Keenum doesn't turn out to be the next Peyton Manning, there shouldn't be a need to despair.

For completists, some near-misses:
2005 Broncos: 2, 9, 4
2009 Cowboys: 3, 10, 2
2014 Ravens: 9, 8, 5
2015 Bengals: 2, 10, 5

The Martyball Chargers finished 1st in variance twice in three years, and 5th the season in between.

Points: 0

#56 by andrew // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:29am

By definition not a domination. They only won by 10 pts, not the 14+ a domination requires.

Points: 0

#95 by enaidealukal // Dec 01, 2017 - 4:12pm

the lost by 10 due to a meaningless garbage time TD. It was an absolute throttling. The Vikings have completely dominated both the Rams and the Saints. If DVOA can't reflect that (as it apparently can't), so much the worse for DVOA.

Points: 0

#97 by Will Allen // Dec 01, 2017 - 8:50pm

You really need to look at the data, for thousands of games, before making such a confident pronouncement.

Points: 0

#57 by andrew // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:29am

By definition not a domination. They only won by 10 pts, not the 14+ a domination requires.

Points: 0

#52 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:10am

Also, the harder the schedule is, the fewer opportunities there are to stomp bad teams. Maybe a stomp percentage metric is needed!

Points: 0

#101 by sandbun // Dec 02, 2017 - 10:13am

Something I just noticed about the Vikes, they have 0 come-from-behind 4th quarter wins. That's got to be unusual for a team with a high winning percentage, right? They do have one win where they were tied in the 4th quarter and kicked a last minute FG - at Chicago where they always seem to play like garbage - but that's it. They're winning their games that they win, not relying on 4th quarter heroics which usually aren't sustainable, even if every year there's a few teams that do sustain it over a 16 game season only then to take a step back next year. The fact they have no such wins feels significant.

Points: 0

#11 by Cythammer // Nov 28, 2017 - 7:55pm

I guess for the Ravens the fact that the team is all way up in 6th even with Flacco performing as one of the absolute worst QBs in the league is a reason to be optimistic. If Flacco can simply return to a level of mediocrity the team might be really great. The way they are right now, they are reminiscent of the 2015 Broncos: best defense in the league, extremely bad QB play, and an overall ranking in about the same area (Broncos were 8th in DVOA that year).

Points: 0

#22 by bravehoptoad // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:06pm

I was really pulling for the Ravens to land Kaepernick this offseason. He works well with Harbaughs.

Points: 0

#39 by BJR // Nov 29, 2017 - 7:50am

I don't hold out any hope for Flacco at this stage. He has been abysmal ever since he returned from a torn ACL after the 2015 season. Not just bad - the absolute worst in the league. Of all the teams, Baltimore deserves to draw the most ire for not approaching Kaepernick.

Points: 0

#53 by JimZipCode // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:21am

>> Of all the teams, Baltimore deserves to draw
>> the most ire for not approaching Kaepernick.

Supposedly there were within days of signing Kaepernick, when his girlfriend tweeted out the pic comparing Bisciotti & Ray Lewis to & DiCaprio & Samuel Jackson from Django.


And then their interest evaporated. Which is understandable.

Points: 0

#13 by rich006 // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:22pm

It's hard to see what DVOA liked about the Saints offense this week. They hardly did anything outside of Kamara's superhuman 75-yard TD run in the first quarter and a too-late-to-matter series of nice pass plays when the Rams were playing prevent.

Points: 0

#15 by Aaron Schatz // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:31pm

1) As I say over and over, those pass plays when the Rams are in prevent DO have predictive value for the future. It's better to be able to pass against a prevent defense than not, and the game wasn't completely out of hand. I know people don't like that all my research has shown that these plays should be considered, but that's what my research has shown.

2) No turnovers. (One fumble, recovered by Saints.)

3) Opponent adjustments for playing the Rams are strong.

4) Opponent adjustments also changed for previous New Orleans opponents, in particular the last two, Washington and Buffalo.

Points: 0

#20 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:46pm

Even though onside kick recoveries for the kicking team are relatively rare events, I still think you have to consider it a close victory when your team has to recover one to preserve the win.

Points: 0

#24 by Will Allen // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:20pm

Yep, if the other guys can jump on a live ball, a get a toss into the end zone for a tie or win, you didn't win that comfortably.

Points: 0

#27 by Hextall_27 // Nov 28, 2017 - 11:18pm

I have been critical of the Saints being rewarded for bad play against the 5 minute drill in the first few weeks of the season. In the last 2 games they scored late TDs in 42 and 48 second drives. If the Redskins and the Rams were playing prevent D, then they were doing it wrong.

The Saints got lucky against DC and had a chance to win if they got lucky vs the Rams, but their offensive skill got them in position for luck to matter.

Points: 0

#38 by apk3000 // Nov 29, 2017 - 7:49am

Honestly, the Redskins tend to give up late quick scores a lot. Their defense likes to start off great, but as the game progresses, they tire and are pretty much just trying to hang on.

Points: 0

#48 by Pat // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:47am

When I was watching the game, at the end, I was totally thinking "oh, crap, they've made Drew Brees angry." I told everyone else watching that the game was going to come down to an onside kick recovery, because Brees was going to march down the field and score, and if they got the recovery, he was going to do it again.

I don't get how people can say "oh, the Rams were just in prevent" and dismiss it. The Saints scored in 42 seconds. If the Rams were in prevent, their prevent sucks.

Points: 0

#54 by dryheat // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:25am

Exactly. If you can do the one thing the Prevent is supposed to prevent, you deserve all the credit thrown your way.

Points: 0

#68 by CBPodge // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:44am

I wonder at what point I'll be able to watch a Rams game and not have a sense of crushing inevitability that we're going to lose.

Points: 0

#74 by Tim R // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:53pm

Im hoping having a 1st winning season in 14 years will help. That and McVay impresses me more each week.

Now if i could trust them enough to ever start Goff in fantasy football thats when I'll know progress has been made.

Points: 0

#75 by Tim R // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:53pm

Im hoping having a 1st winning season in 14 years will help. That and McVay impresses me more each week.

Now if i could trust them enough to ever start Goff in fantasy football thats when I'll know progress has been made.

Points: 0

#78 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Nov 29, 2017 - 3:02pm

I've started Goff with regularity ever since Watson got hurt (with the exception of the Minnesota game), and he's been mostly crushing it for me.

Points: 0

#50 by nat // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:04am

...all my research has shown that these plays should be considered...

If I recall, your research was to see if garbage time (defined by score margin and time remaining) should be excluded. That is, if you selectively exclude up to a quarter of the plays made by the best teams in their best games or the worst teams in their worst games, do you get a more predictive stat?

Naturally, such a skewing of the data set based on the same thing you are trying to measure (the ability to maximize the score margin) wasn't going to work well.

But it remains true that fourth quarter DVOA is a much less reliable predictor than DVOA from other quarters. Smart teams aren't necessarily playing to maximize VOA any more. They're playing to maximize the chance of the win (or should be).

Points: 0

#91 by zenbitz // Nov 30, 2017 - 3:10pm

to anecdotally support this, watch recent vintage 49er teams (or other horrible passing offense teams) fail to do anything in garbage time against prevent defenses

Points: 0

#16 by dmstorm22 // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:42pm

Clearly they liked nothing given how bad they were outplayed by DVOA against the Rams.

It's probably more that some of the previous performances have started to look better.

Points: 0

#34 by Duff Soviet Union // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:31am

I'm a premium subscriber and from the ratings for each team, St Louis had a rating of 83% compared to 36% for New Orleans.

I'm guessing it's not close, but I'm now wondering what the highest "combined DVOA" is for a single game.

Points: 0

#69 by CBPodge // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:48am

It might actually be close. A quick google showed me the 2012 Week 15 DVOA ratings, where Aaron wrote about the 49ers V Pats "San Francisco gets 33.6% DVOA for the game, while New England gets 24.4% DVOA. I don't have time right now to go back and check, but I would not be surprised if this is the highest combined total DVOA for one game we've ever seen."

Points: 0

#18 by Richie // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:43pm

It sure is hard to wrap my head around the idea that Baltimore may be better than New England.

Points: 0

#26 by Raiderfan // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:37pm

What is hard to wrap MY head around is the Raven offensive DVOA went up after the latest FLACCO by Flacco. They looked horrible.

Points: 0

#47 by Mike B. In Va // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:40am

That's the Ravens, though - they look terrible and somehow win games. They've done it enough that it can't just be luck.

Points: 0

#30 by CaffeineMan // Nov 28, 2017 - 11:38pm

Playoff game of Pats vs. Ravens: the Opposite Bowl. Ravens still scare me more than any other possible Pats playoff opponent. Game could turn on special teams and Ebner's out and Slater's marginal. I guess my opinion may change depending on the outcome of Pats-Steelers, but for now...

Points: 0

#31 by Hextall_27 // Nov 28, 2017 - 11:50pm

The smell test says they barely beat Tom Savage at home.

DVOA can not properly capture a janitor playing QB for the other team.
The Patriots faced the same team with a league MVP caliber player at QB.
The Houston who played New England should have had an offensive DVOA around 40.
The Houston that played Baltimore should have had an offensive DVOA around -40.

Watson could play behind that bottom 5 o-line because he has Russell Wilson level mobility.
Savage stands there and fumbles.

Watson had 21 TDs and 11 turnovers (8 int and 3 fum) in 6 games.
Savage has 4 TDs and 13 turnovers(5 int 8 fum) in 6 games.
This is pretty much the 1990 Eagles offense or the 1991 Eagles offense based on QB.
DVOA is not built to handle such an extreme case.

Here is an interesting exercise. Go through the Ravens schedule and list the QBs they have faced. Now do the same for New England and compare them.

One defense is dominating an arena league football QB schedule and giving up 107 points in their last 7 games.
The other defense is giving up 85 points in their last 7 games.

Points: 0

#35 by RickD // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:45am

You're seeing the effects of opponent adjustments when they don't really account for the changing strengths of the opponents. I'm sure the Ravens got a huge bump for shutting out the Packers based on DVOA "thinking" Rodgers was at QB (or at least, it hasn't really adjusted to Hundley's play, and it won't, since Hundley is improving so it will never reflect his actual level of play that day).

The Ravens probably have a top 10 D but it's not as good as DVOA thinks. Somehow they gave up 44 points to the Jaguars, though it seemed like they really never got through customs at Heathrow for that game.

The Lions should provide an interesting test.

Points: 0

#36 by ammek // Nov 29, 2017 - 4:11am

Hundley has only played one game since that day. How do we know he's improving?

There's an alternative explanation for the Ravens' getting a huge bump by blanking Green Bay: they shut down Hundley much more effectively than the Packers' other opponents. Consider that Green Bay has committed nine turnovers in six games since Rodgers broke his collarbone; Baltimore forced more than half of them. The Ravens had more takeaways in the first quarter of that game than the rest of the teams Hundley has started against all put together. Green Bay hasn't had more than 10 real drives in any of Hundley's starts, except against Baltimore when it had 13. Yet the Packers were held under 4 yards per play by the Ravens, compared with 5.6 against Pittsburgh and 4.8 against New Orleans.

The Ravens deserve more credit than you're giving them for dominating the Packers. And they did it with minimal help, as usual, from their own unsightly offense.

Points: 0

#70 by RickD // Nov 29, 2017 - 11:59am

You're taking issue with me saying going from a 0 INT 3 TD game to a 3 TD 0 INT game is evidence of improvement? It's not like the Steelers have a soft defense.

Look at Hundley's game log and argue that he's not improving. His second and third were poor, he had a decent game against the Bears (yee-ha!) face-planted vs. the Ravens and clearly had his best game against a very good Steeler defense.

Sometimes teams just go out and have a bad day. If you think the Ravens deserve full marks for shutting out the Rodgers-less Packers or the dismal Dolphins, then they also deserve full negative marks for falling apart utterly vs. the Jaguars. Sometimes I see a team just give up and the rest of said game doesn't seem typical to me. Good on the Ravens for getting the Packers to do that.

Sorry, but when I look at the teams the Ravens have actually beaten, I'm not impressed. Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Dolphins, Packers (w/o Rodgers), and Texans (without Watson, Watt, Mercilus....).

Points: 0

#77 by jtr // Nov 29, 2017 - 2:29pm

The Steelers game was the first one where Hundley really started to step up into the pocket when pressure developed. Before that he was going backwards and then trying to escape around the end, which usually just ran him into an easy sack. That's a huge adjustment and a lesson that a lot of bad quarterbacks never quite learn.

Points: 0

#82 by ChrisLong // Nov 29, 2017 - 6:48pm

Yes, that definitely was by far the biggest positive step yet for Hundley. If he can learn to move in the pocket calmly and effectively, he will soon be a good NFL QB, in my opinion. i don't think he'd be great, but a good to average QB is worth a lot in the NFL.

Points: 0

#19 by techvet // Nov 28, 2017 - 8:45pm

Editor, give that man a raise for pointing out that "2000 is technically still the 20th century"!

I knew it was bad that the Packers beat the Steelers 3-0 in turnovers and still lost the game. I didn't know how bad. I'm amazed the Packers are still 14th in weighted DVOA.

Points: 0

#29 by RickD // Nov 28, 2017 - 11:31pm

+1 for the first comment

There was no Year 0. Though, come to think of it, AD wasn't even used until the Middle Ages.

Points: 0

#83 by RobotBoy // Nov 29, 2017 - 7:38pm

Between Classical Antiquity and the Renaissance.

Points: 0

#25 by Jay Gloab // Nov 28, 2017 - 9:31pm

Is the Eagles' decline in ST ratings since peaking at #1 after Week 5 due to the decline in the kicking game?

Points: 0

#32 by Hextall_27 // Nov 29, 2017 - 12:43am

I know they lost ground on special teams for the Dallas game.
The game started with a Ryan Switzer 61 yard kick return.
They missed a short field goal when a concussed kicker attempted one.

They may have also dipped a bit vs SF when Elliot missed a couple extra points.

Points: 0

#37 by ammek // Nov 29, 2017 - 4:34am

Looking at the list of worst pass defense DVOAs, it's interesting that several of the older teams were in the first year of a rebuild: the 49ers post-Young, the Cowboys post-Landry, the Lions post-Orlovsky. Neither Miami nor Oakland really has that excuse.

What the heck happened to Kevin Greene in 1991? This is a list of his sack totals in his first seven years as a starter; see if you can spot the odd year out:
16.5, 16.5, 13.0. 3.0, 10.0, 12.5, 14.0

Who took over as the Rams' defensive co-ordinator for that one season? Yep, Jeff Fisher.

Points: 0

#73 by Richie // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:53pm

Interesting. It looks like the Rams switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in 1991. Greene moved from outside linebacker to defensive end. Doesn't this mean he moved from a stand up pass-rusher to a hand-down DE? Why would you do that to a guy coming off 3 straight years of double-digit sacks?

According to PFR, in 1992, they stuck with the 3-4, but moved him to a LB in 3-4.

Isn't LB in a 3-4 similar to a DE in a 4-3? Interesting that he moved to LB in the 3-4, which is different than the LB in a 4-3 that he had the big sack totals in for the Rams and Steelers. Then he more big sack totals playing LB in Carolina's 3-4.

Are there any other linebackers who were able to maintain big sack numbers while moving around between these positions?

Points: 0

#80 by ammek // Nov 29, 2017 - 3:09pm

I think that's come out a bit muddled, and the source of the muddle might be PFR. According to PFR, the Rams employed a 3-4 through 1990 and switched to a 4-3 in 1991. Greene was an OLB in the 3-4, and remained at least partly a linebacker in the 4-3 for the next two seasons (when he had his worst sack numbers). For 1991, Greene's plyer page lists him as 'llb/RDE'; however, on the Rams' Starters & Roster page he's listed as simply 'LLB'.

In any case, in footage of the 1989 NFC championship game, the announcers point out that the Rams are using Greasy Neale's old five-man 'Eagle' front, with the outermost lineman setting up to jam Brent Jones at the line of scrimmage. Greene plays almost exclusively on the outside in the game, as LA shows three-, four- and five-man fronts. To little avail, obviously.

In other words, it's complex.

It still begs your very pertinent question about why the Rams were messing about unnecessarily with Greene.

Points: 0

#84 by Travis // Nov 29, 2017 - 9:16pm

Greene by game, 1991:

Games 1-5: Greene opened the season as a right defensive end in new defensive coordinator Jeff Fisher’s 4-3 alignment, but struggles. At some point in game 5 against the Packers, Greene is moved back to his traditiional standup left end position and records his first sack of the season.

Games 6-10: Greene starts as LLB in a 4-3, but moves to end on passing downs because the coaching staff doesn’t believe he can handle coverage.

Game 11-12: Greene starts as left defensive end in a 4-3 against the run-and-shoot Lions and Steve Bono’s 49ers.

Game 13: Greene is moved back to LLB against the Redskins.

Game 14: Greene starts at left defensive end in a 4-0-7 alignment against the run-and-shoot Falcons.

Game 15: Greene starts at defensive end in what is listed as a 5-2-4 alignment against the Vikings. No idea why the Rams did that.

Game 16: Greene starts at right defensive end in a 4-3 in John Robinson’s final game as head coach.

January 9, 1992: Jeff Fisher is fired as defensive coordinator by new head coach Chuck Knox.

Points: 0

#85 by MC2 // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:24pm

Interesting. I seem to remember around the same time (or maybe a couple of years later), the Chiefs moving Derrick Thomas back and forth between OLB and DE, although his PFR page has him listed exclusively as an OLB.

Also, as for that 4-0-7 alignment, didn't Belichick use that as his base defense against the Rams in the Super Bowl?

Points: 0

#86 by Travis // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:53pm

The 1993 Chiefs listed Thomas at RE for the first couple of games and "RBK" in a formation with other front seven players at "LE", "LT", "RT", "LLB", "MLB" and "RLB" for the rest.

Points: 0

#88 by ammek // Nov 30, 2017 - 7:50am

That's brilliant, especially the punchline. Thanks Travis.

On youtube I found the highlight reel from the Rams' win over Dallas the following season (1992). Greene is playing on the line but he drops back into coverage on many of the pass plays, usually shadowing Moose Johnston or a tight end. It does seem a waste.

The LA Times articles you linked to, particularly the last one, are shocking to 21st century eyes, in terms of how frankly the coaches talk to the media, and the balance of power between coaches (you'll do what we say) and players (I don't enjoy it much, but I'll do what I'm asked).

Points: 0

#40 by theslothook // Nov 29, 2017 - 8:26am

The 2000 Vikings had a pass defense of 335.2% ?!?!?!?! I knew it was bad, but that can't be correct, can it?

Points: 0

#42 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 8:30am

On a weighted basis, it may have approached that.....

Points: 0

#41 by theslothook // Nov 29, 2017 - 8:28am

I know this will come off as yet another rant about dvoas shortcoming from the peanut gallery...but maybe it would be worthwhile to put in a dvoa adjustment via qb/injuries later in the year. It may help with the predictive value, especially since by that time, you can tell which players missing were probowlers/ starting qbs.

The saints defense was missing lattimore and others while tom savage, brett hundley, and others are gumming up the Ravens numbers this year.

Points: 0

#43 by Will Allen // Nov 29, 2017 - 8:35am

Brett Hundley/Packers passing offense was hugely better against the Steelers than against the Ravens. Any adjustment, which lessens the hit the Steelers d takes for that, may not be an improvement.

Points: 0

#76 by Richie // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:55pm

Would you adjust up or down for the switch from Bradford to Keenum?

Points: 0

#87 by Jerry // Nov 30, 2017 - 4:46am

A couple of opposing arguments:

-Quarterback injuries are easy, but what about left tackles? Or free safeties? Or multiple players being injured?

-In the same way that 5-6 summarizes the Packers' season with both starting QBs, their 4.9% DVOA does the same. It's a handy way to look at the entire season, even if you can easily divide it into a couple of different parts.

Points: 0

#89 by Hoodie_Sleeves // Nov 30, 2017 - 10:42am

The fact that qualifying for hurt LTs or FS is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't qualify for hurt QBS, where its easier.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Points: 0

#90 by Richie // Nov 30, 2017 - 2:11pm

But how do you decide what QB adjustments are necessary? And when?

When Case Keenum replaced Bradford, I assume that would be an adjustment down at the time. But now, it looks like that switch is not much of an adjustment. Do we re-evaluate each week? And what would your adjustment be if Keenum got hurt this week, and Bridgewater comes in?

What would your adjustment have been in 2001 when Drew Bledsoe got hurt and Tom Brady came in?

Also, look at the Jets. Everybody assumed they would be horrible this year because they got rid of so many experienced players. But it seems there is a point where a team can get better just by letting young players play. (Except in Cleveland, of course.) I feel like there have been many seasons where teams got rid of a lot of players we are familiar with, and they were assumed to be terrible, but ended up being not so terrible.

This is the trouble with trying to make adjustments. They have to be done subjectively, and it's very easy to be wrong. Let alone trying to determine the magnitude of the adjustments.

Points: 0

#92 by Hoodie_Sleeves // Dec 01, 2017 - 2:51pm

I don't have an answer - I just don't think we should dismiss trying to qualify QB'ing because you can't do it with other positions. Its the single most measurable position.

"Also, look at the Jets. Everybody assumed they would be horrible this year because they got rid of so many experienced players. But it seems there is a point where a team can get better just by letting young players play"

I'm confused. The Jets ARE terrible. (although they're better than last year)

Points: 0

#93 by Richie // Dec 01, 2017 - 3:41pm

The Jets DVOA is -15%. Cleveland and Miami are in the -30% range. Plus they've been competitive in most of their games.

I think most people, or maybe it was just me, thought the Jets would easily be the worst team in the league.

Points: 0

#61 by Aaron Brooks G… // Nov 29, 2017 - 10:59am

"The other issue for the Raiders is that they've put up this horrific pass defense despite playing one of the league's easiest schedules of opposing offenses, featuring the Broncos, Ravens, and the lousy non-Patriots offenses of the AFC East."

Shouldn't that be irrelevant to DVOA?

Points: 0

#71 by Aaron Schatz // Nov 29, 2017 - 12:15pm

It is but it is not irrelevant to the fact they somehow have only one interception. It’s kinda nuts.

Points: 0

#72 by Aaron Brooks G… // Nov 29, 2017 - 1:26pm

Not everyone gets to play the Peterman Bills.

Points: 0

#94 by enaidealukal // Dec 01, 2017 - 4:07pm

Ok, you don't need any more proof that the DVOA formula is severely flawed than the Saints and Rams getting completely THROTTLED by the Vikings, and still somehow, magically, ending up ahead of them in DVOA. Oops. So much for meaningfulness of DVOA, eh?

Points: 0

#96 by Richie // Dec 01, 2017 - 7:58pm

Please use the appropriate format:

____ is clearly ranked __too high/too low__ because ___. __subjective ranking system__ is way better than this. __unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling__

Points: 0

#99 by theslothook // Dec 01, 2017 - 11:12pm

I'm going to regret this...but can you explain exactly where it's flawed? How do you imagine that dvoa is short-changing the Vikings?

Points: 0

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