Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

18 Dec 2006

2006 Quick Reads: Week 15

Here's the weekly roundup of the best and worst games according to DVOA. Learn about the Rex Grossman 2006 Positive Thinking Psychology Tour, witness the three seasons of J.P. Losman, and gasp in amazement when you see that Chris Chambers had 10 intended passes with no catches and now has a season total DPAR twice as negative as any other wide receiver. By the way, all individual stats here on FO are updated through Week 15 (no MNF).

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 18 Dec 2006

70 comments, Last at 22 Dec 2006, 12:44pm by noah of the ark


by Tally (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:13pm

I think the caveat on the LT comment was unnecessary, or at least, it should be a general caveat on DPAR in general. I know Madden was gushing a sickening amount of man-love for LT, but the comment combined with the amount of commentary from this site poo-pooing LT's season seemed less than neutral.

by Bledderag (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:21pm

What cracks me up the most is how when LT was in the game, Madden kept talking about how great LT was and what great moves LT had. But when Turner was in, all Madden could talk about was the great blocking that Turner was getting.

by jonnyblazin (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:26pm

At least Madden wasn't afraid to be critical of Tomlinson's (also Gates) multiple missed blocking assignments.

by Andrew (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:35pm

There is no way any serious observer could consider Elisha Manning the better QB against Jeff Garcia yesterday. Garcia threw for over a yard per attempt more and over 2.5 yards per completion more. The Giants converted 2 fewer third downs. What exactly is causing this strange result? Is it all opponent adjustment?

by jim's apple pie (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:46pm

re: 3

Yeah, what was up with that? I expect a couple of missed blocks from Gates every game, but I view it as something that I just have to accept in order to get his receiving skills in the game. I know Gates has been working on his blocking and that he wants to be known as a complete player. But LT is usually very good at picking up the free defender. I wouldn't say that he is a great blocker, but he usually gets in the way enough to slow rushers down. The one missed block that they highlighted was just weird. KC's left defensive end (Hali?) came in unblocked off the edge. LT looked at him and then took a step to the left and blocked nobody. Why? Why do players so often seem to ignore the obvious guy they need to block?He's going to get ripped for that one during film study.

by Ferg (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:48pm

4: If you look at the little table above the complete rankings, it shows that Garcia was 10th before adjustments and Li'l Manning was not in the top 10. In other words, yes, it is all opponent adjustment.

NYG pass defense = 1.7%, PHI = -15.1%

by Duff Soviet Union (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:48pm

I haven't seen a Dolphins game all year but I am a Raiders fan. If Chris Chambers is twice as bad as Alvis Whitted....wow, he sucks.

by paytonrules (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:50pm

Brett Basanez was actually mentioned in Pro Football Prospectus. In the QB projection section - as a system QB I believe (Northwestern).

Look it up!

by Richie (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:52pm

Aurora Gory Alice?

by Travis (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:03pm


There is no way any serious observer could consider Elisha Manning the better QB against Jeff Garcia yesterday. Garcia threw for over a yard per attempt more and over 2.5 yards per completion more. The Giants converted 2 fewer third downs. What exactly is causing this strange result? Is it all opponent adjustment?


1. Manning threw 11 more passes. DPAR is a counting stat; on a per-pass basis, Garcia was more valuable.

2. Garcia was sacked twice, Manning only once. Garcia fumbled on one of those sacks.

by Andrew (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:09pm

Travis #10:

1. Manning threw 11 more passes. DPAR is a counting stat; on a per-pass basis, Garcia was more valuable.

Intuitively, I'd think this would be balanced out by the 19 yard TD pass Garcia made. But yes, good point - 10 more passes and 40 more yards.

2. Garcia was sacked twice, Manning only once. Garcia fumbled on one of those sacks.

But Manning threw one more pick. Of course, maybe sacks and fumbles are worse than picks.

by BlueStarDude (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:10pm

My guess at what MDS will find: Julius Jones runs with blinders on, and so if the hole isn't gaping and right where it's supposed to be, he won't find it. The odd thing is that he didn't seem to have this problem his rookie season. He's somehow become a wind-up back. It also doesn't help that he rarely slips out of ankle tackles, whereas Barber typically gashes defenders who don't take him on squarely.

by Travis (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:18pm

But Manning threw one more pick. Of course, maybe sacks and fumbles are worse than picks.

I was more pointing out 1) that Manning turned it over twice in 39 pass attempts, while Garcia did so in only 30; and 2) the fumble wouldn't show up in Garcia's normal passing stats.

by hector (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:36pm

IIRC Rattay's attitude and arrogance wore out his welcome in San Francisco. But he's not a bad QB, never has been. I think it's arguable that he was the best guy Tampa Bay had available at the position all along (I never drank the Simms kool-aid, and said so elsewhere, publically, in August.)

A lot of QBs without comments this week. I guess Aaron has some last-minute shopping to do, too, like the rest of the testosterone-carrying members of the audience.

by hector (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:39pm

Jared Allen should have driven Brandon Manumaleuna to the airport. The 86-guy in blue absolutely ate his lunch on so many snaps in a row, it was embarrassing.

by NF (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:41pm

Chris Chambers has really gone out of his way to prove FO right about him, hasn't he?

Aaron, a special request: given the sheer offensive force involved in the Monday Night game, can you post any notable DPAR from the game in these comments on Tuesday?

by navin (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 11:11pm

Nice, three (ex-)Niners in the top 11.

Rattay: I think all SF fans knew he was a good QB, but he definitely had his problems.
1) He's relatively immobile and short, so he's pretty vulnerable to pressure up the middle--like Bledsoe but not quite so bad.
2) He's injury prone, so you'd better have a good backup, and SF did not. This is compounded by his immobility.
3) Nolan mentioned something about getting the bad seeds out before trading Rattay and Jamie Winborn. I obviously don't know the inner workings of the team, so I can't comment extensively on this one.

All that being said, Gruden definitely deserves a lot of criticism for not starting Rattay all season long. I can understand playing Simms ahead of Rattay to start the year, but Gradkowski? Come on! Gradkowski obviously showed that he isn't ready to play in all those games he started earlier this year.

by Scott C. (not verified) :: Mon, 12/18/2006 - 11:17pm

As for the LT comment, I present you LT 2002 and LT 2003. Healthy LT years without a great O-line.

2004 and 2005 he was injured (groin, ribs) for good stretches of the season.

An equally important part of LT's 85 yard run was a Cheif defender slipping and falling down.

Yes, this is a team sport, which you can now apply to the Rivers comment --- the pass protection was causing a lot of problems for Rivers, in addition to some fortuitous tipped balls.

All of the per-player FO stats are not really stats on the players themselves. This is in the FAQ, yet commentary quite often seems to forget this.

Its a mix of the person and the team, the situation and the opponent (opponent adjustments are not perfect and opponents have above average and below average games, etc).

The ratio of "how much is this the RB versus the o-line" CANNOT be captured in any FO stat at this time, and is not a constant from year to year and team to team. FO stats + film study and some subjective reasoning can be combined to get a better big picture. One or the other alone is interesting but can't tell you the whole story.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:15am

Wait, wait: how in God's name did Willis McGahee end up with less DPAR than Shaun Alexander? That has to be a mistake.

Alexander was ho-freaking-rrendous versus the 49ers (oh they of the 30th ranked rush defense). McGahee was running against Miami (6th ranked rush defense).

Alexander had 73 yards on 23 carries. Those carries included a 17 yard run, an 18 yard run, a 9 yard run, a 6 yard run, and a 3 yard touchdown. That's five carries, and 53 yards. That leaves 18 carries for twenty yards. 4 of those were for more than 2 yards. That means that 14/23 carries were for two yards or less. Sounds pretty comparable to McGahee - but against the 49ers!

Oh yeah. And that 18 yard run? Fumble at the end of it.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:22am

Andrew (#11): Yeah, I don't get your confusion there - it's all the opponent adjustments. Eli's not a bad quarterback. He's a bit above average (which, for an NFL quarterback is 'pretty good'). Philly's pass defense is pretty darned good - they'd easily make an above-average QB look bad.

by Ben (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:42am

Hasn't Rivers had 4 poor or middle-of-the-road games in his last 5?

Don't get me wrong, I would dropkick Grossman out of Chicago if it meant the bears would get Rivers, but it seems to me there is more then just the Chiefs game to be concerned about.

by Trogdor (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:47am

Grossman is putting up big numbers against bad defenses, and that's building his confidence. I can see that. However, Sean Salisbury (of all people!) had a very interesting point, that yesterday's game may have really hurt his confidence, or at least shown how little the coaching staff trusts him.

To wit: Chicago got the ball back with just over a minute left. It's a tie game. They're playing an absolutely terrible team. At the time, they may have already known New Orleans lost and they had home field clinched (not sure on either point there, actually). Basically, they had about just about nothing to lose by going for the win and letting Rex air it out. They chose to run it up the middle and play for overtime.

If the Bears don't trust him in that situation - with nothing to lose, against a turd of a team, when Good Rex has shown up - when will they ever trust him? You don't think that messed with his mind a little? I dunno, I thought it was an interesting thought, that even when he's played very well, they'd rather take their chances in overtime than risk letting Rex go for it.

by Staubach12 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:55am

This is off topic, but I'm watching the first halfway decent MNF broadcast this season. I'm not going to say that the guys in the booth are doing a "good job" tonight, but there is improvement. They have made a point NOT to talk over plays (even cutting off the celebrity guest so he wouldn't talk during a play), and almost all of the conversation is about THE FOOTBALL GAME THEY ARE WATCHING.

Maybe these guys are actually paying attention to the criticism of their work. Maybe after 8-9 years, we could start to call this group good (okay, now I'm getting carried away). But this is the first game I haven't had to resort to my radio, which gets horrible reception, to handle the color commentary.

by navin (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:33am

The Bears had the ball at their own 10 yard line with 1 minute left. I thought it was a pretty easy decision to go to overtime with such poor field position.

by Marko (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:53am

#22: I completely disagree. Which is not surprising, since I think Salisbury is clueless and often makes idiotic pronouncements. Also, some of the facts you stated are either wrong or need more context to understand.

First, the Bears hadn't clinched home field yet. While they surely knew that New Orleans lost (since that game ended when there was still about 7 minutes or so left in the Bears game), that alone wasn't enough to clinch home field. The Bears still needed to win or tie to clinch home field yesterday.

Second, the Bears were backed up on their own 10 yard line to start that drive, and Tampa Bay had either 2 or 3 timeouts left. If the Bears had better field position (at least their 30 yard line), they probably would have been more aggressive. But since they were backed up at their own 10, why be aggressive when airing it out runs the risk of (a) stopping the clock with incomplete passes and then having to punt, leaving the opposition in good field position with timeouts remaining, (b) a sack, which would worsen field position and could result in a safety or a fumble, or (c) an interception deep in your own territory?

Also, Tampa Bay had momentum. So the smart thing to do was run and, at a minimum, pick up a first down (which they did on the second running play). If they had broken a run (which was certainly possible in that situation, since Tampa Bay had to play a prevent defense), they could have then taken some shots. But once they picked up a first down, they were still on only about their 23 yard line. And the odds of something bad happening were still greater than being able to get in field goal range considering how little time was left by that point.

If the Bears didn't trust Rex, he wouldn't have thrown the ball 44 times in a game the Bears were dominating for the first three quarters. And they wouldn't have let him take the shots he did in overtime, the last of which set up the game-winning field goal. I simply don't think the way Lovie played for overtime messed with Rex's mind at all.

by Trogdor (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:04am

Well, there ya go. I'll take your word for it. And now I need to go get my XM installed so I can get the national ESPN radio instead of the local shows, so I never find myself listening to that show again.

by Mike W (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:40am

Re Favre's INTs - two of them were on tipped balls. GB went with the dink-and-dunk passing game Sunday. Favre was a little off-target much of the time, a pretty average game for him this year. I've seen him be very good and very bad and everything in between this year. This one was 'meh.'

by David (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:52am

What was Marvin Harrison's DPAR for his 3 TD performance tonight?

by theory (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 3:26am


In the last 5 games, Rivers was bad against Oakland, Buffalo and KC, but shredded Denver twice. WR injuries are a problem - the only healthy WR they had against KC was Vincent Jackson (McCardell was limited, Parker hurt his neck in game, Floyd was out).


Same sentiment here - how the hell did it take Gruden so long to yank Gradkowski? They'd managed to score less points than even Oakland until this week.

by the K (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 6:54am

I was thinking the same as the commenter above about how McGahee's day really could have been worse than Shaun Alexander's day with opponent adjustments. Those fumbles must have really been killers.

Also, what was Randy McMicheal's DPAR? He dropped (I think) four passes, two of which would have been first downs on 3rd down. Most of his yards were meaningless in the 4th quarter.

by Mike (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 7:07am


Probably somewhere close to amazing. At one point before Marvin dropped that ball that hurt his hand he and Reggie had caught all 13 passes thrown to them I believe. Peyton was absolutely on fire tonight.

Also, honestly can someone just explain to the announcers why these players aren't getting perfect passer ratings. It's pissing me off how much flak passer ratings are getting these days because the announcers don't understand how it works. Yes, it's flawed but at least have the decency to look up the VERY SIMPLE math behind it. Peyton doesn't have a perfect passer rating because his yards per attempt aren't at the (admitingly high) "perfect" mark of 12.5.

And really, it's always the yards per attempt. It's almost impossible to have a perfect game because of that. Any player who throws a significant number of passes will inevitably end up with too many attempts. Peyton would have needed 450 yards passing, not 280.

by peachy (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 9:08am

I was surprised to see five players below Garrard - were there an unusual number of awful quarterbacking performances this week?

by Sam! (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:03am

If I'm not mistaken, the turnovers-returned-for-TDs don't go into DPAR any worse than a moderately long return, not for a TD.

However, when you give away 21 points to the other team and your defense only gives up 3 points the entire game (because your special teams gave up a 70-yard return), I think it's safe to say 6th-worst DPAR doesn't do your rottenness justice.

by Adam, VA (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:20am

Aaron, could you post Marvin and Peyton's DPAR please.

by Jumpin Jahosofat (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:33am

I can only imagine if Pennington actually had an "every down" running back, and a starting receiver over 6' tall. He would be deadly.

by kibbles (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:35am

Geez, you guys must really have a bone to pick with Chambers. What's with all of this unwarrented criticism? Did he sleep with your sister or something? Whatever happened to fair and balanced coverage?

Sure, he may be the worst receiver in the NFL, but why oh why doesn't anyone mention that he's the second-best rushing WR in the league, behind only Javon Walker?!

by kibbles (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:37am

Oh, and just in case anyone missed it... yes, that last post was a joke. Being the best rushing receiver in the league is somewhat akin to being the best tackling punter in the league, or the best receiving Quarterback.

by Charles the Philly Homer (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:45am

Is it just me, or does it seem pretty clear that they've toned down opponent adjustments?

by peachy (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:58am

#33 - Well, I guess you can't really blame Garrard for the returns; that's mostly bad luck. But even if there had been no return yardage at all it would have been a rotten performance - it boggles the mind that there were five that were not only worse but much worse. (There's a big gap between Garrard and Kitna.) This isn't meant as a criticism of the formula, just as a general expression of horror...

by B (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:00pm

37: Hey, what do you have against Josh McCown?

by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:10pm

Charles the Philly Homer (#38 )--

AFAIK, they don't tone down the opponent adjustments.

What happens is: as the season preogresses and they get more data, early outlier games which greatly skew the overall stats, get blended in with more normal data. This makes the beneficiaries or victims of those extreme performances, regress toward the mean in rankings.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:11pm

I think that a plausable explanation concerning Losman's "three seasons" is that shortly before the "third season", Buffalo reshuffled their O-Line and he's been receiving better protection.

by dbt (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:24pm

Brett Basanez is a tall, mobile quarterback with a bit of a cannon. He led a pretty awful Northwestern team to a a bowl game and put them in the record book as only the second Big 10 team to break 500ypg total offense. He came 4 rushing yards short of being the only player in NCAA history with 10,000 passing yards and 1,000 rushing yards.

Of course, their defense was a pile of crap, as anybody who saw the MSU game this year knows. The most interesting comment I've heard on him since going to Carolina is that he's one of the best scout team guys they've ever seen, because he can show you just about any look an opposing qb is going to show.

Keep your eye on this kid.

by dbt (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:35pm

Also, in Des Clark's defense, he has spent the last 4 years playing behind Randy McMichael in 2002 in Miami and the rest of that time in Chicago without a QB.

I still think he's just an average talent, but that and being a TE will get you a lot of action against tampa-2 defenses, which the Bears have seen a lot of this year.

by CA (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:45pm

Re: Aaron's Ladell Betts comments: The rumors about Washington using Clinton Portis as trade bait and giving Betts the job, though, are a bit silly. There's nothing wrong with having two good running backs if you want to win in this league.

Sure there is, if one of them has a huge, above-market contract and the other has a reasonable, at-or-below-market contract. If your reasonably paid guy performs about as well as your overpaid guy, what's your overpaid guy really doing except eating up cap room? I'm not saying that the Redskins should jettison Portis because I don't know what the exact salary cap implications of such a move would be, but if those implications are positive, then I think they should seriously consider it. Betts is demonstrating once again the fungibility of running backs, and you shouldn't have guys taking up significant cap space at fungible positions. Plus, maybe the Redskins can find a sucker team who will trade them the best corner back in the league and a second round pick for an overrated and overpaid running back. Okay, I'm getting carried away. No team would be dumb enough to do that.

by David (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:55pm

On the other hand, there is a very real benefit to having a reasonably-priced, reliable backup to your starting RB, in case he breaks his hand or his leg or something. All the more so since running back is one of maybe four or five positions the Redskins have depth at.

by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:59pm

Free Rock Cartwright!

by Andrew (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:00pm

I am dumbfounded that Brian Westbrook, who is the 11th most valuable player in the league by total DPAR (after the top 9 QB's and Tomlinson), may not make the Pro-Bowl because of Tiki Barber retirement sympathy voting.

Similarly, Maurice Jones-Drew, who in total value is right there after Westbrook (when you include his kick-return value), may also be exlcuded.

by Eric P (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:08pm

#19) They're only comparable if you ignore the fact that it took McGahee 5 more carries to get 6 more yards, fumbled twice as many times, and had no tds (to 1). Not to mention that your cursory review of stats probably didn't include too many looks at down and distance when these carries occurred.

Other than that, yeah, pretty comparable.

by Tally (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:13pm

Re 18: That football is a team sport and that RB numbers are dependent on the O-Line, among other factors, is something that can be said about every RB. The commentary recently seems to apply this caveat to LT's season but not to the other seasons to which his is being compared. Holmes and Smith had incredible O-Lines behind which to run when they had their record-setting seasons. LT's has been great, as well, but this is one of the few seasons he has had that luxury.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:55pm

19) They’re only comparable if you ignore the fact that it took McGahee 5 more carries to get 6 more yards, fumbled twice as many times, and had no tds (to 1).

Yeah. It is pretty comparable. It's not ridiculously far off. McGahee has an extra fumble. Alexander has a (very short) touchdown. McGahee has a few extra carries (5 carries for 6 yards... oh, wait, that's what Alexander would've rushed for, too, if you take the mode of the distribution). So I'd expect Alexander to be ahead, but not gigantically ahead.

And then the (large) opponent adjustment for the god-awful bad 49ers rush defense should push Alexander down, and the (large) opponent adjustment for the very good Miami rush defense should push McGahee up.

Not to mention that your cursory review of stats probably didn’t include too many looks at down and distance when these carries occurred.

That's true. But none of those short carries were 3rd and short, if that's what you were thinking (well, the one that was, he didn't convert).

All in all, a very, very bad day for Alexander, considering the competition. Which is why I'm amazed that McGahee, versus a good rush defense, putting up not-terribly-worse stats, ends up worse.

by Bill Barnwell :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:59pm

Chris Chambers has really gone out of his way to prove FO right about him, hasn’t he?

Whoa whoa whoa. "FO" is not right. Bill Barnwell is right. There is no "FO" consensus on Chris Chambers. :)

Not to mention that two of the throws in his directions became interceptions.

by Charles the Philly Homer (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:02pm


DPAR is a rapidly-evolving statistic. After several wacky results that indicated problems beyond a small sample size, it seems clear to me that adjustments have been made. Or, on the other hand, it indicates that adjustments must be made to offset the influence of small sample size on the value of the results.

From weeks 10-14 Quick Reads was pretty ridiculous looking from a holistic perspective. Opponent adjustments were incredibly uneven.

by RecoveringPackerFan (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:30pm

43: I'm not surprised he works well on the scout team. His college successes (especially running) were usually due more to smart play than individual talent. I just wish Northwestern could have put some sort of defense with him last year so I could have gone somewhere nicer than El Paso for bowl season.

by ABW (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:52pm

Re: 53

But Aaron doesn't change the DVOA formula in season without a lot of hoopla. Those of us who have been here for a while remember the infamous "Indy is undefeated but is getting pulled down by Houston's black hole of suck" scandal last year that resulted in second-order opponent adjustments being added in midway through the season. Aaron does not like to change the DVOA formula mid-season.

Sorry Charles, but the opponent adjustments haven't changed. But yes, you do need to make adjustments to statistics based on small sample sizes. The adjustments are called "your own observations" and "common sense".

by B (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 4:11pm

Early-season DVOA weights the defensive adjustment less to account for small sample sizes. In weeks 1-4, there is no opponent adjustment, and it goes up from week 5-12, finally reaching 100%.

by Charles the Philly Homer (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 4:54pm


Other, mathematical adjustments can be made to produce results with a greater degree of confidence. Consult the article linked in my name to get a basic idea of how samples are constructed and how they can be adjusted to better suit specific needs.

I was unaware that adjustments to stats here were always made with fanfare and an announcement. Maybe it's my lack of participation here over a long period of time. On the other hand, my generally skeptical nature leads me to believe that minor adjustments are being made to the way opponent adjustments are applied. THAT, or the statistic has a deficient sample size until late in the season, which brings the value of weekly reports into question.

by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:04pm

Re: 57

I can't be positive, but I'm fairly certain that mid-season adjustments to the formula are announce.

And of course there is a sample size issue early in the year. That was the whole point of "DAVE". That is just a fact of life and is unavoidable. I think what you're missing is the fact that Chicago has regressed towards the mean a bit and therefore their enormous adjustment is only a huge adjustment now.

by ABW (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:23pm

I guess I don't really see what sampling has to do with DVOA - DVOA uses every play that's happened in the season so far, it's not like Aaron takes a subset of the plays and uses them as a representative sampling.

As for deficient sample size, well, all I'll say about that is that Tim Rattay was the most valuable player in football according to this week's Quick Reads. :-) Quick Reads gives you a rough idea of how people performed this week, and specifically about performances that you might otherwise not have noticed(i.e. Chris Chambers can't catch). It's not a good way to try and figure out who's actually any good - that's what the season long stats are for.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:34pm

DPAR also uses DVOA, not weighted DVOA, I'm pretty sure. Which means that changes like Chicago's defense declining aren't caught up with by DPAR.

It would probably make more sense to use "weighted DPAR" in a weekly report.

by Andrew (A.B.) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:39pm

Cleo Lemon: "He gets letters"???

by Maltodextrin (not verified) :: Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:35pm

Letters to Cleo.

by Duff Soviet Union (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 10:16am

More on Chambers. He is currently on pace to put up the second worst DPAR since stats were kept in 2000. Even if he plays at slightly above replacement level the next 2 weeks, he will still have that distinction. One player, however, is miles and miles ahead (behind) of him. It has been a while since a stat actually made me laugh out loud, but this one did. Chris Chambers, putting up the second worst season ever, is at -17.4DPAR. Coming in at -29.5DPAR is....Az Hakim from the 2003 Detroit Lions. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Millen.

by queequeg (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 1:18pm

63: ... what happened? was he secretly working for the opposition or something? DVOA had him at like 84th in the league

by Sam! (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 3:52pm

Yeah, but if the returns aren't for TDs, his day is not quite so abysmal - 3 INTs (not 4, because the Jags would have been grinding out the clock with

by ptfe (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 5:02pm

Just a technicality, but I've seen it in three different places this week and it's starting to rub me the wrong way: the rookie Vikings QB isn't "Tavaris", it's "Tarvaris" -- click my name to see his bio.

Yeah, he's from I-AA, and his name isn't from the standard book, but it's no harder than Vernand or D'Angelo. Or maybe we should just start shortening it now...Tar Jax, anyone?

by Joey Harrington (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 7:08pm

What do Az Zahir Hakim of the 2003 Lions and Chris Chambers of 2006 have in common, other than league-worst DPAR?

by Brad (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 11:08pm

66: Yeah, he’s from I-AA, and his name isn’t from the standard book, but it’s no harder than Vernand or D’Angelo,

Just a technicality but it's DeAngelo. I know he only went to Memphis and not a big name school and his name isn't standard but it's no harder than D'Brickashaw or Marques.


by D\'ptfe (not verified) :: Wed, 12/20/2006 - 11:41pm

Damn! Knew I should have vetted the lousy AP spellers. I could have left it at "D'[fill in the blank]" and had a whole set of them (D'Anthony, D'Brickshaw, D'Qwell -- are those the only three?) , but nooooooo, had to go for the "De" lads whose names show up in print in their alternate incarnation. Sheesh.

by noah of the ark (not verified) :: Fri, 12/22/2006 - 12:44pm

Of course, Chambers is much better than this. He's just having a terrible year. For example, at least two of the passes he didn't catch in the Patriots game were way off target when he was open (and in one case wiiiide open).

He might not be a superstar (I think that's the point), but he's definitely not the stinker Joey Harrington is making him appear to be. Seriously, if you're QB is bad, and on top of that you don't build a rapport with him, this is the sort of thing you can expect.