Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» Futures: Josh Rosen

UCLA's quarterback clearly has the talent to succeed as an NFL starter. The question is whether or not he can avoid enough mistakes to become a superstar.

11 Sep 2007

Week 1 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

You love them when your team is high! You hate them when your team is low! DVOA ratings are in effect for 2007!

Once again, the first week of DVOA ratings won't tell us much in the long run. Sure, Pittsburgh is in the lead, but they played Cleveland. We don't include opponent adjustments until three games are in the books, and I have a feeling this game won't rank so high once we start considering how bad the Browns are going to be.

This year's DVOA ratings also feature the return of DAVE, our rating that combines the preseason projection with the results of early games to give us a better prediction of how each team will rank at the end of the year. For those who don't know the story, this metric is called DAVE as a reaction to criticism that our stats are too much alphabet soup. I mean, who can argue with a guy named Dave? (Technically, it stands for DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.)

This year's DAVE is re-figured and ends up a little different from last year's DAVE, primarily because there were a few teams last year that shot out of the gate early and proved their preseason projections to be incorrect. In this week's DAVE ratings, the preseason projection counts for 90 percent, and the current VOA counts for 10 percent. (Last year, DAVE was 96 percent projection after Week 1.)

Congratulations to San Francisco, the only team to win in Week 1 despite a lower VOA than its opponent.

DVOA commentary will not appear on FOXSports.com this year. Normally, I will do a general commentary here, but there's nothing to say after one week. Some form of DVOA ratings may also be appearing on another large sports site, not FOX; that will be announced soon.

Offense, defense, and special teams pages are now updated with 2007 data. The DVOA Premium Database will be updated with 2007 numbers after Week 2. Individual stats pages and offensive line/defensive front seven pages will be updated with 2007 numbers after Week 2.

Loser League results should be updated by the end of today, and there will be a link on our menu bar to take you to the Loser League page.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through one week of 2007, 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 VOA 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/Mexico City) and week of season.

There are no opponent adjustments in VOA until the fourth week of the season, which is why it is VOA right now rather than DVOA.

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>

Seriously, after four years the DVOA ratings and/or preseason projections have been higher than conventional wisdom on every team a few times, and lower than conventional wisdom on every team a few times. We could easily go back into the archives to find reasons why Football Outsiders has a bias in favor of all 32 teams and against all 32 teams. If you make a bias complaint at this point, you just look like an idiot.

1 PIT 92.4% 18.4% 4 102.5% 1-0 14.9% 8 -69.6% 1 7.8% 8
2 NE 88.7% 39.0% 1 82.9% 1-0 61.8% 2 -10.1% 14 16.9% 4
3 IND 78.7% 14.2% 5 74.5% 1-0 49.4% 3 -28.6% 8 0.6% 17
4 MIN 59.6% -2.2% 17 58.8% 1-0 10.9% 9 -41.2% 4 7.5% 9
5 DAL 58.7% -3.0% 19 60.1% 1-0 83.8% 1 29.5% 29 4.4% 11
6 DET 44.0% -4.2% 20 27.9% 1-0 24.5% 5 -7.2% 17 12.3% 5
7 SEA 40.6% 4.1% 12 47.0% 1-0 9.3% 10 -25.0% 10 6.4% 10
8 HOU 39.2% -11.7% 25 37.3% 1-0 3.6% 12 -34.1% 7 1.5% 15
9 SD 32.5% 11.2% 7 29.2% 1-0 -9.5% 17 -48.8% 2 -6.8% 24
10 DEN 19.7% 2.1% 13 21.0% 1-0 16.5% 7 -36.7% 6 -33.5% 31
11 CAR 18.5% 11.2% 6 24.1% 1-0 20.7% 6 -9.7% 15 -11.8% 27
12 TEN 8.9% -5.1% 21 19.8% 1-0 9.1% 11 -3.5% 19 -3.7% 20
13 WAS 6.4% 10.7% 8 25.3% 1-0 -3.1% 13 -5.9% 18 3.6% 12
14 ARI 4.0% -16.4% 29 6.6% 0-1 -12.7% 21 -25.3% 9 -8.6% 25
15 CIN 3.0% -2.9% 18 13.6% 1-0 -11.4% 20 -48.2% 3 -33.7% 32
16 GB -0.5% 5.0% 11 -4.8% 1-0 -38.3% 28 -19.0% 11 18.7% 3
17 PHI -0.7% 23.3% 2 6.2% 0-1 -19.0% 22 -38.3% 5 -20.0% 30
18 MIA -0.8% -13.0% 27 -17.4% 0-1 -5.9% 15 -3.1% 20 2.0% 13
19 SF -4.1% -1.9% 15 -7.1% 1-0 -25.3% 24 -12.7% 12 8.5% 7
20 BAL -6.7% 10.0% 9 -14.9% 0-1 -48.2% 30 -11.4% 13 30.0% 1
21 JAC -11.6% 21.0% 3 -20.0% 0-1 -3.5% 14 9.1% 22 1.1% 16
22 STL -19.7% -23.9% 31 -20.6% 0-1 -9.7% 18 20.7% 27 10.6% 6
23 BUF -32.3% -7.5% 23 -31.3% 0-1 -36.7% 27 16.5% 26 20.9% 2
24 TB -36.3% 5.7% 10 -40.4% 0-1 -25.0% 23 9.3% 23 -2.1% 19
25 CHI -39.4% -0.6% 14 -33.3% 0-1 -48.8% 31 -9.5% 16 -0.1% 18
26 KC -48.4% -27.9% 32 -42.5% 0-1 -34.1% 26 3.6% 21 -10.7% 26
27 OAK -48.6% -15.9% 28 -29.1% 0-1 -7.2% 16 24.5% 28 -16.9% 28
28 NYG -52.7% -8.5% 24 -51.1% 0-1 29.5% 4 83.8% 32 1.5% 14
29 ATL -57.1% -5.6% 22 -52.6% 0-1 -41.2% 29 10.9% 24 -4.9% 23
30 NO -82.0% -12.2% 26 -73.4% 0-1 -28.6% 25 49.4% 30 -4.0% 21
31 CLE -89.1% -17.7% 30 -97.2% 0-1 -69.6% 32 14.9% 25 -4.6% 22
32 NYJ -91.7% -2.2% 16 -84.4% 0-1 -10.1% 19 61.8% 31 -19.9% 29

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 11 Sep 2007

99 comments, Last at 14 Sep 2007, 3:39pm by Nate


by sam (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:02pm

Jacksonville special teams the very definition of mediocre (16 ranking)... WITHOUT A PK and with their rookie punter handling kickoffs. How the 'ell does that happen?

by Charles the Philly Homer (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:04pm

I spit my drink over the Giants defensive VOA.

Of course, nobody in my fantasy league believes my constant reservations re: a Mr. Romo, but at least some statistics support the argument that he was essentially throwing to the most open receivers I've ever seen. Well, short of training-camp practice fields.

by Al H (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:09pm

sam, I think it was balanced by the rather nice kickoff returns of MJD.

by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:12pm

2: You realize that the Giants defensive VOA is the inverse of the Cowboys offensive DVOA, right? At this point it's impossible to say how much of that is the Cowboys playing well and how much is the Giants playing poorly.

by thepull (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:13pm

Seattle is 10-10-10? Weird.

by citizen jason (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:14pm

As a liberal arts major, I have a question that hopefully someone who took, say, a math class in college (beyond math 101) can answer. How can Seattle be ranked 7th overall, but 10th in offensive, defensive, and special teams VOA? I'm guessing it has something to do with the percentages, but that's way to much math for 10 AM. Thanks.

by hooper (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:14pm

Hmm...so how did my Broncos do?

Offense - good...
Defense - better than anticipated...good...
Special Teams - Aw, for cryin' out loud.

Well, there's always hope that ST won't become more than a 1/7 factor in any of their games. Dang.

Actually, my biggest interest is in Chicago's D. What little I saw of the game seemed pretty good, but it didn't pan out here. I believe they'll regress some, as the theory goes, but I'm curious how much it plays out over the year. That'll be a number I keep an eye on.

by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:16pm

1/3: Also, ST DVOA doesn't account for field goals not attempted. How many field goals did they actually miss?

by Jin (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:16pm

Vikes top the NFC! Super Bowl here we come! (hey have to celebrate when we are on top).

by NewsToTom (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:18pm

I flat-out refuse to believe Cleveland's offense did worse than the Bears. I'm surprised to see the MIN offense rank so highly after producing only 10 offensive points.

I'm also (mildly) interested in how the ST numbers aren't the reverse of each other the way offense and defense are. Is the adjustment for situations, mix of KO, Punt, KOR, and PuntRet, or what?

by hooper (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:19pm

Re: 6

The easiest visualization for me is to imagine a bunch of really sucky teams with one good aspect each. For example, a team with horrid defense and ST, but a top-5 offense. They'd rank behind a 10-10-10 team overall, even though one facet is better. Do that with a few teams, and it's not a stretch to get a discrepancy between average rankings (e.g. the 10-10-10) and the overall placement.

For a quick example, look at Baltimore and NYG in the list. They rank above Seattle in one department, but are clearly dragged down by the other two.

by David (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:21pm

Philadelphia special teams isn't ranked 35th? How does that work?

by James G (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:23pm

6 - It's pretty easy this week. Just add the offense and special teams VOAs and subtract the defense VOA, and you have the total VOA.

For Seattle, 9.3+6.4-(-25.0) = 40.7 (they have 40.6, which I assume is do to rounding to one decimal point). It's easy to be ranked higher than your individual components if you're above average across the board.

by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:23pm

10: There are lots of things in ST that the opposing team has no control over. Okay, there are two: Field goal percentage, (except for blocks), length of kickoff/punt.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:23pm


Taking home field advantage into account, it looks like it'll be a division dogfight between them and the Lions.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:24pm

Also, to be in the NFC South - 3 teams at 24th or worse.

by Yaguar (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:25pm

6: "How can Seattle be ranked 7th overall, but 10th in offensive, defensive, and special teams VOA?"

Of the 9 teams ranked above Seattle in each category, many of them are ranked below Seattle in other categories and come out lower overall. Consider a team that's 2nd, 2nd, and 2nd in those three categories. It's highly likely that they'd be the best team in the league by far. Your total rank can easily be greater than the average of your ranks.

by Isaiah C (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:27pm

Wow! Just looked at the Offensive page. It's amazing how big of a gap there is on passing VOA between the first two (Dallas and NE) and the Third (Ind) 153% vs. like 68 or something like that. Wow.

by TheWedge (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:32pm

Because other teams had splits like 7-6-31 (Denver), 22-5-30 (Philly) or 12-7-15 (Houston). By not performing poorly in any specific area, Seattle's overall ranking is relatively high.

Was that a good explanation (from a fellow liberal arts major)?

by Bobman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:33pm

citizen jason, fallen engineer/successful liberal arts major here to help you imagine a world in which one team is ranked 10, 10, 10 another is 1, 15, 18. Which one gets a higher overall slot? The 10s. Few teams are as consistent.

Year in and out, only one or two teams are top ten in all metrics. Anyone who is, is likely to be a top-five team overall. Last year's SB winners were approximately 1, 29, 32. But their offense is often so far beyond the rest and their D and ST only slightly worse than, say, #25, that their O pulls them well ahead to the top 5 or 10 each year. Remember, it's not just rank, but the score that gets you that rank. If the top 10 O teams are all between 25% and 35% DVOA, but the next ten years are all between 2% and 15%, well, there's a big gap that disproportionately helps the top teams when the overall is calculated. It's usually only that way for the top couple teams in any category with the huge gap, but that does affect things as well. (Look at the Offensive VOA this week: #1 Dallas nearly laps #3 Indy and #2 NE does lap #4 NYG. That's why Dal is a top-5 team despite the 29th D rank--their offense performed so far asbove the rest it's nuts, nearly tripling the #4 team, while their D was only twice as bad as the team 4 slots ahead. This will calm down a bit in subsequent weeks.

Now for my Peter King moment: if he were to look at this list he'd conclude that parity raigns in the NFL because exactly 16 teams are 1-0 and 16 teams are 0-1. Or maybe DJ Gallo would say that while channeling King....

Finally, look at the Colts ST---we are AVERAGE! whoo-hoo! Of course, we looked that way after game 1 last season too, IIRC....

by mawbrew (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:33pm

Re: 10

Situational factors were probably the biggest reason for the the offensive DVOA numbers you mentioned.

Chicago's offense had the disadvantage of being in a relatively close game where the SD defense would be expected to continue playing aggressively. Cleveland had no such excuse.

Similarly Minnesota's offense was always playing with the lead so they weren't expected to play aggressively.

by Charles Jake (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:33pm

The Bears D is clearly ranked too low because they shut down the best offensive player in the universe for 2 and a half quarters, stopped the Chargers on the 2 yard line, and only gave up 2 scores despite 4 turnovers and zero offense. Desperate, straw-grabbing homerism is way better than this. BEAR DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Bobman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:39pm

Damn if we're not all so helpful and cheerful. It's like a little tea party for numbers-minded football fans.

Of course it's just week 1--wait till our starting QB and MLB are on IR, the star WR is in jail, and the head coach is slapped with six simultaneous paternity suits, then we'll be snarling like jungle animals ready to shiv the next poster in the ribs for disparaging our team's (cough) valiant effort in a 41-0 loss.

by scottnot (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:45pm

DAVE, yeah right. How about STEVE LOMRES the long time nfl statistician arrested for using a wide stance in a Gillette stadium restroom. Stats That Effectively Value Everyone Lower On My Reversed Engineered Statistics. But, I kid. Or do I?

by DEA (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:45pm

I believe 7 was referring to the fact that, based on number of plays in a game, special teams are closer to 1/7 of the game than 1/3 like many people think. There is a link on my name to an article by Pete Prisco on CBSSportsline about that calculation.

by sam (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:52pm


I believe he was referring to posts 1/3, not a fraction. I thought the same thing as you, though.

by Dave (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:54pm

I mean, who can argue with a guy named Dave?

Would that that was true...

by DEA (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 2:55pm

26: ah, that would make sense. Oh well, hopefully it was informative for someone.

by Will (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:05pm

Week 1 VOA rankings are fun ... total offensive and defensive VOAs are of course the mirror images of the teams that played one another. I had expected to scroll down and see Cleveland at #32 (mirror image of Pittsburgh at #1) but of course the Jets' awful special teams granted them that special honor.

Good stuff as always, FO!

by TomC (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:09pm

re: #22

Preach it, brother!

Clearly, (D)VOA is inadequate because it doesn't consider Tommie Harris's unique ability to take away the ball before it's snapped.

(Seriously though, I'm a bit surprised by the Beloveds' -9.5% for defensive VOA -- all those failures to stop SD on the final clock-eating drive must have really hurt.)

by Fergasun (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:10pm

I always thought we had to wait at least 3 weeks for the first DVOA ratings... what's the deal this year? You don't have to take part in all the activities of National Jump to Conclusions Week...

by ammek (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:16pm

10, 14: You've forgotten another thing the opponent doesn't control - muffed and fumbled punts. I don't know if these count for anything in DAVE, though.

by MCS (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:21pm

Thank you. Please disregard my earlier comment.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:34pm

The Chicago/SD game is a tough read because the Chargers have such a good O and the Bears have such a good D. When adjusted for opponents, that game will probably look better.

but again, who knows - maybe in 8 weeks, we'll look at this game as a match between two bad teams that everyone thought'd be good.

by Brooklyn Bengal (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:34pm

The Cincinnati Bengals are clearly ranked too low because they beat the smack out of the Baltimore Ravens, ranked #4 DVOA pre-season and the FO consensus projected AFC North Champions. Seriously, Hall of Fame voting is better than this. WHO DEY!!!

by BadgerT1000 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:39pm

I am encouraged by the DVOA results. While the ST ranking will clearly go down the offensive numbers have nowhere to go but up. Well, they CAN go up. No guarantee that they WILL go up..........

by Brooklyn Bengal (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:41pm

Genuinely, though, the Bengals' offense looked horrid. While I'm not happy to see Cincy ranked in the bottom half, they deserve to be there after so many dropped passes and bad throws...not to mention Rudi's late fumble. I am certain that they'll improve as the year goes on, but we need a little more consistency out of our back-ups on OL and some actual effort by our special teamers if we even HOPE to give the Pats and the Stealers a game.

by Rauschman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:43pm

I also want to know how Philly's ST VOA isn't lower. I understand that other teams missed a bunch of field goals, and fumbles recovered in the end zone are random and unrepeatable events. But when two inexcusable, egregious fumbles lead to 10 out of an opponent's 16 points and indisuptably LOSE THE GAME for a team, how can the DVOA fail to reflect that? And if it doesn't, how useful can it be in telling the real story of a win or loss?

by citizen jason (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:44pm

Thanks for all the explanations--I appreciate all the help. It does make a bit more sense now, even from a numbers point of view. Maybe next week I'll ask about whether Manning or Brady is the better QB ....

by thepull (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:45pm

I wish that who dey stuff would just stop alredy

by thok (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:53pm

What's that weird symbol in front of the Niner's defense VOA?

Oh, wait, it's a minus sign. It's been a long, long time since we've had that in front of our defense VOA.

by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:57pm

38 -

The Eagles get negative credit for the muffed punts, which were terrible and are reflected in that 30/32 ranking.

But the fact that the outcume of the muffs was so catastrophic (i.e. both lost, one for a TD) is considered bad luck. If an Eagle is at the bottom of that pile in the first quarter (and honestly, how could that be anything but a coin flip?) then that's Philly ball on the 20.

by DrObviousSo (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 3:57pm

As a Steelers fan, this is like the week from heaven.

by nick37 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:08pm

Without addressing #6's question...

One thing I'll always remember from Stats 101 is Simpson's Paradox, which refers to : 'The reversal of the direction of a comparison or an association when data from several groups are combined to form a single group’ --Moore, D.and McCabe, G. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, p190.

Conversely (O.J.) Simpson's Paradox refers to something completely different.

by ammek (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:13pm

What does DAVE find to like about the Packers' offsense?

And is this the first Mike Martz offense to lead the league (albeit very temporarily) in rushing VOA?

by n0_j0 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:19pm

I thought that Simpson's paradox was: "How can donuts taste so good but make you so fat? D'oh!"

by SM (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:21pm

The -33.7% DVOA for the Bengals ST is unsurprising given how horrendous they were. But it could have been worse! I recall Kyle Larson having to deal with at least two other wayward snaps on a couple of the successful kicks.

by Yaxley (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:22pm

I always thought we had to wait at least 3 weeks for the first DVOA ratings… what’s the deal this year? You don’t have to take part in all the activities of National Jump to Conclusions Week…

I don't know why the headline says DVOA, but there's a line at the bottom of the intro that points out that these are actually VOA ratings. Defense adjustments won't happen until week 3, which means these numbers don't tell us a whole lot. At least not yet.

by Penrose 10,000 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:22pm

DAVE is clearly ranked too high because statistics suck. Win-Loss records are way better than this. REDSKINS 1-O BABY THEY'RE PUMPED TO BEAT EAGLES LATER NEXT WEEK!!!

by Kevin (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:56pm

At first I thought the Eagles would be ranked #32 in ST, but then I remembered the bad luck thing with fumbles. Those 2 fumbles are essentially equal to one INT, as far as VOA is concerned.

But, to all those worrying Eagles fans out there, A.Reid is always TERRIBLE in game #1 (he almost lost to the Texans last year); he is 3-6 lifetime in openers. Expect him to bounce back (and same with McNabb, Westbrook, and the O.Line shaking off the rust). The D looks stacked though...and is Reno Mahe our savior!?

Lastly, why don't they resign Bloom (at least put him on the practice squad)?

by johonny (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:57pm

Ouch the AFC least race is so over.

by rapscallion67 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 5:09pm


Stopped at the 2 yard line? That's fresh. It's the ref's DVOA that should go up for that one.

by QB (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 5:14pm

Maybe muffs should be attributed to the defense in some cases. The Eagles' first muff was basically just a case of the defender ignoring the halo rule and hitting the returner as he was making an attempt to catch the ball. On the last one, the returner's progress to the ball was impeded while trying to make a fair catch (though the returner's judgment on the play was still terrible).

by Disco Stu (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 5:28pm

So did the Giants play the worst defensive game of the DVOA era? (though in this case it's just the VOA era)

I saw the game, and I've got to attribute that 83.8% number to 25% good offense and 75% shoddy defense. Big Blue was helpless.

by JeffW (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 5:32pm


"citizen jason, fallen engineer/successful liberal arts major here to help you imagine a world in which one team is ranked 10, 10, 10 another is 1, 15, 18. Which one gets a higher overall slot? The 10s. Few teams are as consistent."

You cannot tell which team would be ranked higher just by looking at those numbers.

by Matt (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 5:34pm


DAVE loves underhanded flip passes by a QB with a defender draped all over the QB's body. So he loved the GB-PHI game.

by chip (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 6:08pm

#35 With ten Pro Bowlers playing against each between the SD Off. and CHI Def. units, these teams will benefit from big pops in opponent adjustments after week 3.

by chip (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 6:09pm

#34 With ten Pro Bowlers playing against each between the SD Off. and CHI Def. units, these teams will benefit from big pops in opponent adjustments after week 3.

by Gerry (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 6:18pm

The Giants are clearly ranked too high because the football Gods hate me. Cricket is way better than this. Eaglez blow.

by afrasso (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 6:18pm

If opponent adjustments aren't factored-in yet... what's the difference between VOA and Non-Adjusted VOA?

by bparks (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 6:24pm

So isn't it really VAVE untill week 3?

I mean, who can argue with a guy named Dave? (Technically, it stands for DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.)

There are no opponent adjustments in VOA until the fourth week of the season, which is why it is VOA right now rather than DVOA.

by Admore (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 7:04pm

Yay Texans - we're number 8. I conclude that we are AWESOME. Shhh. I dont want to hear anything about "one data point", "dont' jump to conclusions" or "KC bites", ok? Let us have our moment.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 7:43pm

#60: There are other adjustments in VOA - fumble recoveries, opponent kickoff length/field goal kicking percentage.

by pbmax (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 7:59pm


I believe the halo rule was in college football only. And if I remember correctly, it was eliminated a couple of years ago.

From the TV angle, it looked like the gunner got him immediately after the ball hit him in the hands. Legal I believe, and the reason he needed to have called a fair ca

by Alex (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 9:07pm

Jacksonville special teams the very definition of mediocre (16 ranking)… WITHOUT A PK and with their rookie punter handling kickoffs. How the ‘ell does that happen?

Sign #287 that life is rough for Jaguar fans: They're celebrating mediocrity!

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 9:11pm

Hey, where's raiderjoe?

by Purds (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 9:50pm

Bobman, OMO, and all other Colts fans:

Party at my house tonight! Drinks on me!

Are we celebrating the win over NO? No way.

We're celebrating the fact that the Colts are ALMOST ranked in the top half of the league in special teams! It's not going to get any better, so let's celebrate now!

by CowWithBeef (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 9:50pm

After watching the Steelers vs Browns game, I thought I had witnessed the single worst performance by an NFL team I had ever seen. A performance that I might add, included a punt in which 4 penalties were called on the Browns simultaneously. I am shocked that the Jets managed a worse performance.

by David (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 9:58pm

the only problem with the DAVE is that some off the pre season projections this seasons were just so off and every body knew it (Tampa Bay)

by The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 10:38pm

Re: 69

I remember in that DAVE was more correct than DVOA last year in regards to the Seahawks vs the Rams. I know DAVE was way off on the Saints.

On the whole, I think DAVE was more correct but I don't remember anyone really examining it.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 10:59pm

Am I the only one who's upset that it took 49 posts before we got the zlionsfan template?

by gasman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:38pm

Denver's 31 Special Teams VOA demonstrates just how idiotic Peter King was for naming the Broncos special teams coach the coach of the week.

by admin :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:44pm

Please discuss the Patriots scandal in the XP specifically about that story. Other comments will be deleted. Thanks.

by Yaguar (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:47pm

I wish we were still on FOX because then I could watch DVOA trolls rant about New Orleans being ranked 26th.

by RMaloy (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:54pm

The Bears are at -0.60% DAVE. All I can say is: they are who they thought they were. Go ahead, crown 'em!

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:56pm

74: We're all still hungover, so most of the Saints fans won't try to incur the FOMBC.

by Raiderjoe (not verified) :: Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:58pm

Raiders going up next week. Lions O just too good, maybe best in league. R Williams, M Furrey, C Johnson, S McDonald great Wr core. You know it good when N Asomugha and F Washington can't stop it. Raiders still on track for 10-6. Schedule to get easier. Lions will make playoffs.

by Richard (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 12:24am

You know, I really do miss the commentary FO did on the rankings when they were on Fox.

by Bobman (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:27am

#55 Jeff W, Absolutely agreed--it's the %age rating that gets them that 1-32 ranking that matters. In general, however, I will venture that the middle 22 teams are all generally within reasonable reach of each other that one COULD make a reasonable guess based on those rankings. It's the top 5 and bottom 5 in any one of the three categories who tend to be such distant outliers that one strong aspect yanks the others up or down significantly.

Purds, my flight from Seattle gets in late, so start the party without me. Didn't they start last year this way? I remember raving over Rob Morris's KO coverage vs the Giants. Then, as you say, all downhill from there. Let's hope there is some regresson to the mean going on there this year. A final ST rank of 20 wouldn't be too bad. Mid-teens and I'd be elated.

by jimmo (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:53am

re:Sophandros #71, you must still be hung-over! see posts 22 & 35...

by Trevor B (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 3:39am

Darn you Oakland; you are supposed to be my sleeper late-round defense. Now I have yet another reason to dislike you.

by Dave B. (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 5:02am

"The Bears D is clearly ranked too low because they shut down the best offensive player in the universe for 2 and a half quarters, stopped the Chargers on the 2 yard line, and only gave up 2 scores despite 4 turnovers and zero offense. Desperate, straw-grabbing homerism is way better than this. BEAR DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Charles Jake"

Well Jake, the best offensive player in the Universe also had a decent receiving day (aside from Gates who went over 100), and I beg to differ that "THE BEARS" stopped the Chargers on the 2 yard line. We all know what happened there, unless we truly are homers.

But it seems almost everyone is overlooking the fact that 90% of this weeks rankings are based on preseason. That should tell it all. These are not viable predictions by any means. I love the DVOA, but it takes a few weeks for the numbers to look right.

by mactbone (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 9:35am

Re 82:
Not the preseason, the preseason projections. So, the same formulas that get the projected DVOA for the book, but tweaked for the changes that occured from printing to or through the preseason.

by Moe (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 9:53am

How nice to see Minnesota with positive numbers! It'll never last but for a week its nice to look at. Could be a candidate for biggest disparity between offense and defense by the end of the year.

Aaron - I think you are just a little too defensive about comments regarding DVOA. We are the choir when it comes to the system. The occasional jerk is just that only a jerk. I'm sure it must be frustrating to have something so cool that is still ignored to a large extent by MSM, but we are all on your side when it comes to appreciating DVOA.

Those who are using DVOA as part of The System! tm might not want to the word to spread though...)

by Brian (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 10:59am

Forget about San Diego - New England, the real game of week 2 is clearly Detroit vs Minnesota. Lets get the flex schedule earlier in the year NFL and NBC

by James G (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 11:09am

70 - What do you mean DAVE was more correct than DVOA? You mean week 1 DAVE was more correct than the pre-season DVOA projections? I don't quite follow you since DAVE should be X% DVOA projections and (100-X)% VOA from the season.

by Michael Zannettis (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 12:43pm

Considering that the Giants ranked almost at the bottom in pass-defense vs. TE's last year, I'd take Romo hitting Witten all over the field with a grain of salt.

Sure, he made a couple of great throws, but Romo also was consistently hitting WIDE OPEN receivers. That's not great Cowboys route running. That's horrible Giants coverage.

As a Giants fan, I knew three quarters into the game that it's going to be a very long year. At least Coughlin will finally get fired.

by Zac (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 12:54pm

RE: 86. I believe the point is that DAVE (with 90% DVOA Projections and 10% actual VOA) is more accurate than just VOA (and DVOA, starting week 4) is.

by Zac (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 12:55pm

This early in the season, at least.

by Stryker_GC (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:05pm

If there is ever a ranking system I rely on, check religiously, and am constantly impressed with, its this one.

Thanks Aaron. Only I miss your comments on the side regarding each team.

Thanks for bringing intelligence to rankings.

by The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:06pm

Yes, I meant DAVE is more correct that early season VOA, although again this is just my impression and I don't think anyone has examined it.

by James G (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:08pm

OK, I didn't realize that was in doubt. DAVE should be more accurate than VOA since VOA isn't going to have enough connections between teams. And that's the whole reason you can't create a DVOA early in the season, anyway.

by Charles (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:15pm

"DVOA commentary will not appear on FOXSports.com this year." Ah, that means I have almost no reason at all to visit there anymore. I'm guessing this is because they have their own "power rankings", but I've always found their comments to be too serious and dry (yawn!). So I second comment 78: please post by team (snarky) comments here, I miss them!

Oh, and yes, my Ravens totally deserve their low ranking; their play Monday night was just awful. And Cinci deserves a ranking almost as low, because, as bad as the Ravens played, a good team would've totally blown them out, rather than the outcome being in doubt up until the last play of the game.

by admin :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 1:20pm

I'll have more commentary in future weeks, I was saving time this week to get ahead on stuff I normally do later in the week. Remember, I'm not around Thursday or Friday.

Last year was the introduction of DAVE, but actually a terrible year to use for judging DAVE. 2005-2006 had a lower correlation of year-to-year DVOA compared to previous years and the projection correlated to actual performance worse than in previous years. Trust me, when we look back at 2001-2006 and not just 2006, DAVE is more accurate.

by Grouchy Bills Fan (not verified) :: Wed, 09/12/2007 - 2:57pm

Hooper @ 7: Don't worry about your Special Teams yet, the Bills have had very good special teams for a few years now, which makes your ST look probably worse than it is - and even if your ST sucks, hey I'd rather have sucky special teams and a chance at the playoffs than a probowl punter and a lousy record which is exactly what I got. If they had managed to stop the Broncos' last drive and win Brian Moorman would have been the MVP of the game IMO.

by Moe (not verified) :: Thu, 09/13/2007 - 10:22am

So is there going to be a little * added next to the NE?

Or should the * be just next to their offensive number?

Sorry, couldn't help but yank on the chain a little...

by Brooklyn Bengal (not verified) :: Thu, 09/13/2007 - 2:34pm

RE: 93

I mostly agree with you Charles. Give the Patriots, Chargers or Colts six turnovers and the result will be a blowout...no matter who they are playing.

The Bengals special teams were atrocious where the Ravens excelled. The Bengals offense was inconsistent (at best) where the Ravens D was powerful.

However, I think the Bengals deserve top 10 because even as poor as the Ravens looked on MNF, I think that they are an 8-8 or 9-7 team. Not every team will bully around McNair and McGahee like the Bengals did. But nearly every team will get beat up offensively the way the Bengals did, because the Ravens D is really that good.

by Grant_X (not verified) :: Fri, 09/14/2007 - 1:12am

The 49ers are clearly ranked too low because I like them the best. Ranking the Niners first because I like them is way better than this. LOL @ your sily rateing sustem. My Niners are the bomb!

by Nate (not verified) :: Fri, 09/14/2007 - 3:39pm

It amazes me that the Bills can be consistently one of the best special teams units. Roscoe Parish could be as important to the team as Dante Hall was to the Chiefs a few years ago. They need to find a way to get him involved in the offense. He had 2 catches that he turned into first downs, and they tried to give him a reverse.

CB Jason Webster getting injured could be one of the best things to happen to the defense. It is forcing them to play Ashton Youbouty. See if he can play.