Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

DVOA Analysis

Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season


11 Nov 2008

Week 10 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

Parity is nothing new in the NFL. What's new in 2008 is that the parity doesn't revolve around .500.

Right now, 16 different teams are either 6-3 or 5-4. That's half the league! With so many teams hovering around "kinda good," only three teams are better than 6-3, and only three teams are 4-5. By comparison, last year at this point nine different teams were 4-5.

To show you the difference in 2008, I put together this neat little graph, showing how many teams had X number of wins in each of the last five seasons. Check out how much bigger the green bars (5-4 and 6-3) are in 2008.

With so many teams hovering around 5-4 and 6-3, the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings end up looking a lot different from the standings. The top three remain the same as last week. Sure, it seems a bit strange to have the Eagles second at 5-4, but on Sunday night they looked almost as good as the Giants -- and that's what being ranked second in DVOA makes them, almost as good as the Giants. The Titans still rank third. They have not lost a game, but they've played an easy schedule and four of their wins have come by one score or less. Unlike undefeated midseason teams of the past (2007 Patriots, the 1998 Broncos, 1985 Bears, etc.) the Titans have not yet had a dominating win over a good opponent. A big reason why the Titans are undefeated without blowing the league away is that they are extremely consistent. Right now the Titans rank first in VARIANCE.

Below the top three, things begin to diverge from conventional wisdom. The Packers may only be 4-5, but they rank seventh in DVOA, basically tied with the 7-2 Panthers. (They lost to the Vikings, and moved up three spots anyway because the system thinks they outplayed Minnesota by a small amount.) The Patriots may be 6-3, thanks in part to an easy schedule, but they're all the way down at 20th -- although as of this week they are no longer the lowest-ranked AFC East team. That honor goes to Buffalo, one of three teams that rank below 20th despite a winning record.

What do these topsy-turvy rankings mean in the long run? One thing: get ready for upsets. It is very likely that some lower-ranked teams will make the postseason. Wild card teams are likely to be underrated because their win-loss records do not match their DVOA ratings. According to our DVOA playoff odds report, the Titans now have an 88 percent chance of winning the number one seed in the AFC -- yet according to the DVOA ratings, they are only slightly better than the generally ignored 6-3 Ravens, a team with similar strengths and weaknesses.

By the way, the playoff odds report now gives the chances of the Titans going undefeated (4.8 percent) and the Lions going winless (9.2 percent).

* * * * *

The addition of the "undefeated watch" is just one of the new items at Football Outsiders this week. Even more important is the expansion of our weekly defense vs. receivers table.

We know people use the defense vs. receivers table to help with fantasy matchups, and our own Bill Barnwell uses it each week in his ESPN fantasy matchups column. The problem? DVOA wasn't created to measure fantasy football value. The DVOA ratings measure value per play without telling us if a defense forces its opponents to alter their offensive game plan, avoiding or favoring certain receivers. They also measure certain defensive plays that don't mean anything from a fantasy football perspective, like interceptions.

Starting this week, the defense vs. receivers table will also list average passes per game and average yards allowed per game against the five "receiver types." These numbers are adjusted for opponent strength. The Cardinals throw to their number-two receiver (Anquan Boldin) 34 percent more often than the average offense, and he gains an average of 1.8 yards per play more than the average number-two receiver. Therefore, if the Cardinals throw to Boldin eight times for 60 yards, it won't count as much against the defense as if would if that same defense played the Giants and Eli Manning threw to Amani Toomer eight times for 60 yards.

With the new numbers, you can see certain places where a good DVOA does not mean that a defense shuts down a wide receiver for fantasy purposes A good example is Chicago, which ranks 13th in DVOA against number-one receivers. Most Tampa-2 style defenses tend to face more passes to the opposition's top receiver, and the Bears are a clear example. Their adjusted number is 12.3 passes per game -- second to Washington -- which ends up with 80 (adjusted) receiving yards allowed per game, fifth in the NFL. It turns out the Bears are a good matchup for your receiver, even if that receiver is going to be the target on a good number of incomplete passes.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the first run of this table (all numbers are adjusted for opposing offenses):

  • Even though Washington faces more passes to WR1 than any other defense, the Redskins allow just 50 passing yards per game, below the NFL average. Only Tampa Bay and Carolina face fewer passes per game to the opposing WR2.
  • Minnesota, Philadelphia, and New Orleans all rank in the top six in DVOA against WR2 (yes, the Saints, really, not a misprint) but also all rank in the top six in passes per game to WR2.
  • On the flip side of that, St. Louis has the worst DVOA against WR3 but faces just 5.1 passes per game to "other" wide receivers, well below the NFL average of 7.3.
  • In general, the best teams face the most passes to WR3 because of opponents trying to come back late in games -- but Jacksonville is actually one of four teams that faces more than 10 passes per game to WR3. (The others are the Giants, Bears, and Steelers.)
  • When do you sit your studs? The defense allowing the fewest yards per game to opposing WR1 is Philadelphia, followed by Green Bay and -- a real surprise -- Houston.
  • Keep your tight ends away from the 49ers, who give up just 18 yards per game to tight ends. Play them against the Chargers, who give up a league-leading 83 yards per game to tight ends. They face an average of 11.2 passes per game to tight ends, two more than any other defense.
  • Cleveland may have a poor defense this season, but the Browns excel in one area: preventing success by running backs in the passing game. The Browns rank number one in DVOA against running backs, passes per game allowed to running backs, and receiving yards per game allowed to running backs.

Do note that these defense vs. receivers numbers count pass interference, and the totals for "other wide receivers," "tight ends," and "running backs" include multiple players for each offense. (For example, that number gives you yards per game allowed to all tight ends, not just the other team's starting tight end.) These numbers also count Dallas Clark as a WR3, although I may change him to a tight end in future weeks now that we're running these numbers as well as DVOA.

* * * * *

The other piece of news this week regards the Football Outsiders Premium section. Beginning this week, we're offering a "Half Season Special" subscription to Football Outsiders Premium. For $25, or just over half the normal subscription fee, you will get access to Premium through February 1, 2009, the day of Super Bowl XLIII.

If you've been wavering on subscribing to Premium, this is your chance to check out the DVOA Matchup view as the games become more important to who makes the postseason. This is your chance to get instant advice as your fantasy league enters the playoffs. This is your chance to see how successful our new picks against the spread will be during the second half of the year, now that we have more information to go on. So far this year, our picks against the spread are 78-61-5, and the "green" picks -- our best bets -- are 8-3.

(If you only recently bought Premium and you're now getting buyer's remorse, don't worry -- your standard subscription still goes all the way through the middle of next season, and it is still a better value when it comes to getting bang for your buck.)

The new Premium "Half Season Special" is the first item to be added since we moved our store over from our old server to our new one this weekend. This move should solve the problem we were having with certain subscribers not being able to access Premium. It's important to know that the way to access products in the store has changed a little bit. You'll need to log in to the website, then look for the "My Files" link in the left-hand column. If you've been accessing Football Outsiders Premium or other products with an e-mail link from the old store, that won't work anymore.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through ten weeks of 2008, 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. These ratings also include opponent adjustments. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season. WEIGHTED DVOA is adjusted so that earlier games in the season become gradually less important. It better reflects how the team is playing right now.

As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.

To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:

<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>

All stats pages should be updated in the next few minutes. Remember that as of this week, opponent adjustments are at full strength.


TEAM TOTAL
DVOA 		LAST
WEEK 		WEIGHTED
DVOA 		RANK W-L OFFENSE
DVOA 		OFF.
RANK 		DEFENSE
DVOA 		DEF.
RANK 		S.T.
DVOA 		S.T.
RANK
1 NYG 39.0% 1 38.4% 1 8-1 23.9% 2 -10.7% 8 4.3% 4
2 PHI 33.5% 2 34.4% 2 5-4 18.1% 7 -14.6% 6 0.8% 16
3 TEN 28.9% 3 30.2% 3 9-0 8.2% 12 -21.7% 3 -1.0% 22
4 BAL 26.4% 5 26.3% 4 6-3 5.3% 15 -22.5% 2 -1.3% 23
5 ARI 18.7% 4 17.0% 6 6-3 25.1% 1 3.1% 15 -3.3% 27
6 PIT 17.0% 6 16.2% 8 6-3 -7.7% 26 -24.2% 1 0.5% 18
7 GB 16.5% 10 16.6% 7 4-5 7.5% 13 -5.9% 9 3.0% 8
8 CAR 16.5% 7 17.8% 5 7-2 2.3% 20 -12.0% 7 2.1% 12
9 TB 14.7% 9 13.0% 11 6-3 -1.3% 21 -16.6% 5 -0.6% 20
10 ATL 14.5% 13 16.1% 9 6-3 18.7% 4 7.0% 18 2.7% 9
11 IND 13.0% 14 14.5% 10 5-4 18.3% 6 4.0% 16 -1.4% 24
12 WAS 12.6% 8 12.2% 12 6-3 14.9% 10 -1.2% 12 -3.5% 28
13 NYJ 10.7% 18 11.5% 13 6-3 3.0% 18 -5.4% 11 2.4% 10
14 CHI 9.5% 11 8.1% 15 5-4 4.9% 16 -5.6% 10 -0.9% 21
15 MIA 7.7% 12 10.1% 14 5-4 15.3% 9 -0.5% 13 -8.2% 31
16 MIN 1.9% 16 1.3% 16 5-4 -4.1% 24 -17.9% 4 -11.9% 32
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA 		LAST
WEEK 		WEIGHTED
DVOA 		RANK W-L OFFENSE
DVOA 		OFF.
RANK 		DEFENSE
DVOA 		DEF.
RANK 		S.T.
DVOA 		S.T.
RANK
17 NO 0.7% 15 0.4% 17 4-5 20.0% 3 19.1% 26 -0.1% 19
18 SD -0.4% 17 -2.0% 18 4-5 18.5% 5 21.1% 29 2.3% 11
19 JAC -3.5% 21 -3.2% 19 4-5 8.3% 11 14.9% 24 3.0% 7
20 NE -5.2% 23 -6.5% 20 6-3 2.6% 19 11.0% 21 3.2% 6
21 DEN -6.5% 20 -8.2% 21 5-4 15.8% 8 20.3% 27 -2.0% 25
22 BUF -7.7% 19 -10.7% 23 5-4 -2.7% 22 9.3% 20 4.4% 3
23 DAL -11.2% 24 -16.1% 27 5-4 3.8% 17 8.6% 19 -6.4% 30
24 CLE -11.3% 25 -9.6% 22 3-6 -3.5% 23 16.6% 25 8.8% 1
25 SF -14.2% 26 -14.1% 26 2-7 -18.6% 29 1.8% 14 6.3% 2
26 HOU -14.9% 22 -14.0% 25 3-6 6.5% 14 25.1% 30 3.7% 5
27 SEA -16.7% 27 -13.8% 24 2-7 -4.6% 25 13.5% 22 1.3% 13
28 OAK -31.0% 28 -31.8% 28 2-7 -27.5% 32 4.4% 17 1.0% 15
29 KC -34.9% 32 -32.5% 29 1-8 -8.8% 27 21.0% 28 -5.2% 29
30 CIN -36.1% 30 -35.9% 30 1-8 -18.9% 30 13.9% 23 -3.2% 26
31 DET -42.7% 29 -42.7% 31 0-9 -13.5% 28 30.3% 32 1.1% 14
32 STL -48.0% 31 -46.3% 32 2-7 -21.9% 31 26.8% 31 0.7% 17

  • NON-ADJUSTED TOTAL DVOA gives performance without adjustments for schedule strength, fumble recovery luck, and weather/altitude on special teams.
  • ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close.  It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles.  Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
  • PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
  • FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
  • VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance.  Teams are ranked from most consistent (#1, lowest variance) to least consistent (#32, highest variance).


TEAM TOTAL
DVOA 		W-L NON-ADJ
TOT VOA 		ESTIM.
WINS 		RANK PAST
SCHED 		RANK FUTURE
SCHED 		RANK VAR RANK
1 NYG 39.0% 8-1 48.7% 6.9 1 -7.4% 30 16.4% 1 23.6% 28
2 PHI 33.5% 5-4 34.9% 6.6 3 0.2% 18 6.4% 8 10.5% 10
3 TEN 28.9% 9-0 29.4% 6.7 2 -2.2% 23 -5.3% 24 4.1% 1
4 BAL 26.4% 6-3 30.1% 6.4 4 -3.8% 24 8.5% 6 19.0% 20
5 ARI 18.7% 6-3 21.8% 5.6 8 -4.8% 25 -2.0% 18 12.3% 11
6 PIT 17.0% 6-3 16.3% 5.8 5 5.9% 5 -1.5% 17 4.8% 2
7 GB 16.5% 4-5 11.4% 5.5 9 0.4% 17 -4.2% 22 8.5% 8
8 CAR 16.5% 7-2 12.5% 5.7 6 -0.6% 20 6.0% 9 21.4% 24
9 TB 14.7% 6-3 19.2% 5.1 13 -1.2% 21 -6.8% 27 19.6% 21
10 ATL 14.5% 6-3 14.7% 5.2 12 -1.7% 22 -3.5% 21 23.3% 27
11 IND 13.0% 5-4 6.3% 5.7 7 7.7% 2 -13.3% 30 22.3% 25
12 WAS 12.6% 6-3 13.0% 5.4 11 -0.4% 19 3.5% 12 7.0% 5
13 NYJ 10.7% 6-3 22.2% 5.1 14 -13.7% 32 -2.3% 20 26.5% 30
14 CHI 9.5% 5-4 5.8% 5.5 10 3.8% 9 -5.1% 23 5.1% 3
15 MIA 7.7% 5-4 16.4% 4.9 16 0.5% 16 -21.7% 32 17.0% 17
16 MIN 1.9% 5-4 -2.2% 4.5 18 4.4% 6 8.4% 7 7.1% 7
TEAM TOTAL
DVOA 		W-L NON-ADJ
TOT VOA 		ESTIM.
WINS 		RANK PAST
SCHED 		RANK FUTURE
SCHED 		RANK VAR RANK
17 NO 0.7% 4-5 3.4% 4.9 15 0.8% 15 -1.0% 16 6.8% 4
18 SD -0.4% 4-5 5.2% 4.8 17 -5.0% 26 -2.2% 19 13.3% 12
19 JAC -3.5% 4-5 4.7% 4.5 19 -6.0% 27 13.6% 4 7.0% 6
20 NE -5.2% 6-3 2.9% 4.4 20 -8.0% 31 -0.2% 14 23.3% 26
21 DEN -6.5% 5-4 -1.9% 3.8 23 -6.3% 28 -5.4% 25 17.5% 18
22 BUF -7.7% 5-4 -3.1% 3.9 22 -6.8% 29 -8.9% 28 15.3% 15
23 DAL -11.2% 5-4 -10.8% 3.5 24 4.0% 8 16.3% 2 27.2% 31
24 CLE -11.3% 3-6 -15.6% 4.0 21 6.4% 4 5.6% 10 20.5% 22
25 SF -14.2% 2-7 -18.4% 3.4 25 2.9% 11 -14.0% 31 8.7% 9
26 HOU -14.9% 3-6 -17.8% 2.9 27 1.3% 14 3.7% 11 14.1% 14
27 SEA -16.7% 2-7 -19.2% 3.4 26 2.7% 12 -0.6% 15 18.1% 19
28 OAK -31.0% 2-7 -33.7% 2.3 28 1.9% 13 -6.6% 26 29.7% 32
29 KC -34.9% 1-8 -32.2% 2.2 29 4.2% 7 -12.2% 29 20.7% 23
30 CIN -36.1% 1-8 -43.4% 1.7 31 8.1% 1 9.4% 5 13.5% 13
31 DET -42.7% 0-9 -42.4% 1.8 30 3.2% 10 15.4% 3 16.4% 16
32 STL -48.0% 2-7 -52.9% 1.2 32 7.4% 3 0.9% 13 24.8% 29

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 11 Nov 2008

by panthersnbraves :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 5:31pm

8-10 and 15 means a fight to the finish, right?

by Dales :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 5:48pm

"but on Sunday night they looked almost as good as the Giants"

Actually, no, they didn't. They looked extremely fortunate to not be getting blown out, needing the Giants to be very sloppy with fumbles and with untimely penalties to keep the score close.

ETA- and going in to the game, I thought the Eagles were probably nearly as good, if not better, and expected them to win. However, they did not look (IMO) anywhere near "almost as good" on Sunday night.

by joon :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 5:58pm

well, sort of. the giants were definitely better in terms of yards and first downs, but the eagles did much better on kickoffs, performed better in the red zone, and fumbled fewer times (3 to 1, even though both teams lost 1 fumble). i know subjectively it felt like philly was lucky to be close because it seemed like the giants were getting 6+ yards every carry, but they did play pretty well against an obviously elite team.

by Dales :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:48pm

"but the eagles did much better on kickoffs"

And the Giants did better in the punt game. Overall, despite the kickoff return yards advantage, the Eagles still were outgained by the Giants-- and the only reason it was close was because of a rather untimely hold by the Giants on the Hixon TD that was called back. In fact, I specifically mentioned how the Eagles benefited from very untimely (from the Giants perspective) penalties for this very reason.

"performed better in the red zone"

Both had four touchdowns after making it to the red zone.

The Giants got to the red zone two more times, and came away with 6 more red zone points than the Eagles did.

"and fumbled fewer times"

True. So basically you are taking what I said, which was that the Eagles were fortunate that the Giants were being sloppy and keeping them in it, and using that to say that the Eagles were in it, if I am following you.

"i know subjectively it felt like philly was lucky to be close because it seemed like the giants were getting 6+ yards every carry"

Objectively, they were lucky to be close because the Giants were getting five yards a carry (ETA- while carrying a lot). They were lucky to be close because the Giants were converting third downs at nearly twice the rate. They were lucky to be close because Kevin Boss dropped a touchdown.

The Eagles did well to keep the game close, and to actually be ahead for a while, but that was mostly because of Giants' problems than great play by the Eagles, excepting for the opening Giants drive and the last touchdown drive by the Eagles.

I went in to the game thinking the two teams were very close, and with it being at home I thought the Eagles would win. What I saw was a Giants team handling the Eagles with relative ease, but failing to put them away through their own failings rather than exceptional play by the Eagles. It was a game that was not as close as the score. All in my opinion.

by Scott P. (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:57pm

The Eagles did well to keep the game close, and to actually be ahead for a while, but that was mostly because of Giants' problems than great play by the Eagles, excepting for the opening Giants drive and the last touchdown drive by the Eagles.

I don't understand the arguments. You're right the Eagles weren't great, but you are also correct the the Giants had lots of problems. Those two things suggest the teams are fairly close. The Giants don't get to discount their problems.

by Dales :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 7:22pm

What I am saying is that the Giants lost 5 points more due to problems the Eagles did not force, and that is why the Eagles were fortunate to be so close.

I look at it this way- the Eli interception and the fumbled kickoff pretty much offset; both led to touchdowns for the other team. The Jacobs fumble and the McNabb interception come out to the Eagles advantage by four points, and deservedly so. While Jacobs made a bad decision in being a Flying Wallenda, it was a great hit by the Eagles to force the fumble.

The 5 points the Giants lost through their own unforced errors were 4 points when Boss dropped a touchdown, and 1 point from them going for two which they would not had done had they gotten the TD on the Boss play.

In other words, the game was much closer to being a 10 point Giants win than to being a tie. Again, all just my opinion.

by phillyangst :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 8:11pm

All of what Dales has pointed out plus the "Magic Right Achilles" play favoring the Jints and DVOA [still] loves Philadelphia!!!

by Dales :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 8:30pm

"Magic Right Achilles"

Awesome. I'd go with Achilles Last Stand though. :-D

by MTR (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 8:39pm

I believe the DVOA response would be that those unforced errors count quite a lot. Those are exactly the type of things bad teams do often and good teams do rarely.

by Dales :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 9:18pm

And I believe the response to that is that the Eagles (ETA- recent, three and a half year) ability to underperform DVOA is becoming difficult to dismiss as a fluke. DVOA apparently does not understand that while teams similar to the Eagles will score touchdowns x percent of the times in the two minute drill, the Eagles won't, and that this is repeatable.

Anyhow, that game Sunday was a perfect example of a game that wasn't as close as the score and wasn't as close as DVOA seems to think it was. If those two teams played 100 games with each team performing at the same basic level of performance as they did on Sunday, the Giants would win a substantial majority of them.

by Joseph :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 10:03pm

I will submit (as someone who doesn't follow the Eagles) this hypothesis for DVOA's love of Philly:
As many Eagles fans note, they seem to regularly fail at 3rd & short in the red zone, esp. when running. They also have bad clock management, which leads to longer FG's at the end of halves. Based on commenters here, I also get the impression that they seem to mess up key plays in the game. As I don't follow the Eagles, I will not assign blame for these regular errors that definitely affect wins and losses.
My hypothesis is: DVOA notices 6 to 8 successful plays in the same drive that move the chains and result in a 50 yd. drive. This puts them in FG range, which Akers converts. Fans notice that WR X dropped the 3rd & 5 pass that would have given them a first down in the red zone (or the failed 3rd down plunge into the line, route run 2 yds. short of the marker, etc). DVOA thinks that the Eagles are a regularly successful team that messes up 15-20% of the time. Fans see that they make the same mistakes game in and game out, and are frustrated at a team that could be so much better. The computer sees a team that makes big plays for TD's and says, "They can't keep that up. One successful play won't result in a TD every time. A team like the Eagles is much better--they consistently make good plays." Eagles fans know that those successful plays too often end up short of the end zone, and wonder why a team that is so successful between the 20's can't punch it in a little more often.

Just my hypothesis. I would love to see the Eagles Red Zone Offensive DVOA, Power Run %, and other things that Eagles fans criticize the team for.

by Josh :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 11:10pm

You can find that in the Premium Stats section, I think.

by Alex51 :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 5:51am

the Eagles (ETA- recent, three and a half year) ability to underperform DVOA is becoming difficult to dismiss as a fluke.

Really? That's funny, because their 3 year streak of overperforming DVOA from 2002-2004 seems like a bit of a fluke in retrospect. So, three and a half years can't be dismissed as a fluke, but three years can? That extra half year must mean an awful lot.

Personally, I think they're both flukes. Over the entire Andy Reid era, the Eagles have gained 96.6 estimated wins, while winning 93 actual games. That's an error of less than 4%. Sorry, but a 3.6 game difference over nine and a half years is not proof of some missing variable in DVOA. It's not even an outlier.

by billsfan :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 10:25am

The Eagles are clearly ranked too high because they lost too many close games to better teams that weren't actually as close as a subjective measure like the score would seem to indicate. The New York Football Giants are way better than this. Andy Reid couldn't coach his way out of a cardboard box, even with an extra timeout. Lucky plays are only lucky for teams not named The New York Football Giants. See also Catch, Helmet.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:55pm

Dales:

Did we watch the same game?

Eagles Total Yards - 541 Yards
Giants Total Yards - 567 Yards

Eagles Redzone - 4 Touchdowns, 1 Field Goal
Giants Redzone - 4 Touchdowns, 3 Field Goals

Eagles - 3 forced fumbles, 1 interception on defense
Giants - 1 forced fumble, 1 interception on defense

Eagles - 5 tackles for loss, 1 sack, 3 Quarterback hits
Giants - 2 tackles for loss, 0 sacks, 2 Quarterback hits

Eagles Drives over 4 Plays - 3 Touchdowns, 1 Field Goal, 1 Downs
Giants Drives over 4 Plays - 4 Touchdowns, 1 Field Goal, 1 Punt

Eagles Drives 4 plays or less - 1 Touchdown, 5 Punts, 1 Interception, 1 Fumble
Giants Drives 4 plays or less - 2 Field Goals, 2 Punts, 1 Interception, 1 Fumble, 1 End of Game

The last lines emphasize the actual difference in the game. Both teams had 5 three and out drives. But the Giants got 6 points off of two drives that went three and out because they were in the Field Goal range when they got the ball. The Eagles went three and out elsewhere on the field and could not score.

If the officials had ruled initially that Jacobs fumbled on the goal line and given the ball to the Eagles, who had recovered it, we'd be having a different conversation, wouldn't we? The replay wasn't conclusive enough to show anything either way, so the initial ruling was what mattered. Similarly, if Stewart Bradley had not gotten a facemask penalty for clotheslining Jacobs and tackling him by his shoulder pad the drive before, we might be having a different conversation too. Of course sometimes you have to overcome calls to win a close game, but sometimes also, you win a close game on calls.

There aren't any statistics that will show this game as a domination by the Giants because it was not.

The Original Andrew

by Kurt :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 2:44pm

Including kickoff returns in Total Yards is certainly some creative accounting. Kudos. I certainly hope that every future Giants opponent gets to rack up a couple hundred yards by virtue of returning eight kickoffs.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 6:23pm

The two teams had an equal number of possessions. I was looking at total yardage up and down the field from the time the team took possession to the time when they either scored or gave up possession.

The Giants had 130+ fewer kick return yards on just 2 fewer kick returns. At 8 points per 100 yards, that's the equivalent of giving up 10 points of field position.

The teams were even in passing and interception return yards.

Essentially, the Eagles made up for their lesser performance in rushing and punt returns with a superior performance in kick returns, giving them consistently better field position after a kickoff. Which is also why, when they had the ball with two minutes left in the game, they were only 57 yards of offense away from winning the game despite the Giants supposedly "dominating" them.

Say the Eagles had scored on their final drive with minimal time left on the clock. The Eagles would then be 2 points and about 25 yards ahead on total combined yards from scrimmage, instead of being 6 points and 26 yards behind.

The Original Andrew

by Quincy :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 4:06pm

I agree with Kurt that you've done some great cherrypicking. One could make an equally valid argument that the following stats suggest the game wasn't as close as the score:

Total Yards NYG 401 PHI 300
Time of Possession NYG 39:10 PHI 20:50
First Downs NYG 26 PHI 17
Points off of turnovers NYG 6 PHI 14

I'll admit my bias but I saw the same thing as Dales. Going in, I fully expected the Giants to lose that game. Instead my only concern was that they would blow a game they had no business losing. It sure didn't look as close as the Pittsburgh game to me. Things could change come playoff time, but from what I saw Sunday I don't think the two teams are that close.

by Quincy :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 4:09pm

Also your argument that the difference was the 6 points the Giants got as a result of drives less than 4 plays is completely undermined by your own stats which indicate that the Eagles got 7 points the same way.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 6:29pm

"Also your argument that the difference was the 6 points the Giants got as a result of drives less than 4 plays is completely undermined by your own stats which indicate that the Eagles got 7 points the same way."

Not at all. The Eagles defense forced the Giants to kick by preventing them from scoring a touchdown after both turnovers. The Giants didn't voluntarily kick two under 30 yard field goals after a turnover, they were forced into it by an inability to score a touchdown. They just happened to be in field goal range when stopped because that is where the turnover gave them the ball to begin with. Had the turnover ocurred elsewhere on the field, the same set of plays by the Giants would have resulted in zero points and a punt. So the points should be credited to the field position of the turnover, and not to some skill by the Giants offense.

The Giants defense coughed up a touchdown in 2 plays to the Eagles when placed in a similar position. We have no reason to believe the Giants would have stopped that particular Eagles drive simply because they were unable to stop it on the field. The Giants had an opportunity to hold the Eagles to a field goal, and they failed miserably.

The Original Andrew

by Dales :: Thu, 11/13/2008 - 12:32pm

"Did we watch the same game?"

Apparently, we did not.

I saw a game where:
1) When neither team was making mistakes, the Giants were consistently moving the ball and the Eagles were not
2) When neither team was making mistakes, the Giants were pulling away and the Eagles fading

(Yeah, yeah, I know, you can't take away mistakes because it is a sign of a good team to not make them etc.)

3) But most significantly, consistently the Eagles were a play away from getting buried. For example, if not for the Jacobs fumble, they were likely to go down by 3 scores. Had Boss not dropped the ball in the end zone that hit him right in the hands, then the late rally by the Eagles would have been even more hopeless because they would have been down 3 scores rather than 2 with under 10 minutes to play. The Eagles scored a touchdown on 4th down, which was pretty much a do-or die play. The Eagles stopped the Giants on 2nd and 2 and then 3rd and 1 when a first down would have made it that they might not get the ball back and had left them with almost no time if they had.

Again, understand that this is nothing more than my impressions. However, it seemed to me that the Eagles were often a single play away from getting swamped, while the Giants were never in a similar position. That tells me that the game was closer to being a blowout than it was to the Eagles winning. It is to the Eagles credit that they kept from falling into the abyss, but the fact is that when a team continually is in a position where they have to convert make-or-break plays, then they are defying the odds if they continually do.

by phantomfacemask (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:03am

You can't cite untimely penalties against the Giants without mentioning the iffy (at best) facemask call against Gocong after a crucial stop on 3rd and 1. That call is the difference between a Giants punt and a Giants touchdown.

by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:32pm

Umm, what was iffy about that? It was unintentional on Gocong's part, but he did pull his head back by the mask.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 1:05pm

Well, first, the penalty was on Bradley, not Gocong.

Second, the replay from the side of the field Bradley was on relative to Jacobs showed him clearly clotheslining Jacobs with his forearm under the chin (which caused the backwards movement of his head), and then grasping Jacobs by the left shoulder pad (his hand is clearly visible holding the jersey and pad while Jacobs is falling) and pulling him to the ground for no gain.

From the other side of the field (the initial camera angle), all you could see was Bradley's hand near Jacobs facemask, a jerking motion on his head, and Jacobs being pulled to the ground.

I suppose you can believe whatever you want to though. Bradley was clearly astonished that he got penalized.

As I understand it, a facemask penalty requires that you grasp the facemask with your hand. There was no evidence of that at all, and Jacobs head never turned as though his facemask was grasped.

The Original Andrew

by prs130 (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 2:36pm

yeah I saw Bradley taking great care to keep himself from grasping the facemask. It was a forearm to the mask followed by a grasp of the shoulder pad. Forgivable blown call if you're watching it full speed. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 4:28pm

I haven't check the replay from the other angle, but OK, say it wasn't a facemask. But the penalty for a clothesline in the NFL is also a 15 yard personal foul call. Just semantics, really, if the play occurred as you describe it: "showed him clearly clotheslining Jacobs with his forearm under the chin."

by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 4:32pm

Further explanation, from the Football Glossary:

"Clothesline
Definition: An illegal play in which a player strikes an opponent across the face or neck with an extended arm.
Examples: The penalty for a clothesline is 15 yards."

I'd say that pretty well describes Bradley's play, whether he got the facemask or not.

by Dales :: Thu, 11/13/2008 - 12:38pm

If it wasn't a facemask, it was a clothesline which is also a 15 yard penalty. Further, it did not lead to a touchdown, but rather a field goal.

by Michael19531 (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 1:42am

I agree with Dales 100%. Without looking at advanced or mainstream statistics, I believed that Philly could put 11 guys "In the box" and the Giants still could average 6 or 7 yards per running play. I would like to see the guys who run this website analyze how good this season's Giants o-line run blocking is compared to other o-lines from the past. I know that their data base only goes back to 1995, but from what I've seen from the Gmen's line thus far they compare very favorably with o-lines of the early '90s Cowboys, the '88 Bengals line led by Anthony Munoz and the '77-78 Patriots line led by John Hannah and Leon Gray.

by JSap :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 9:56am

I agree that the Giants put up great rushing numbers in the game, but when they could have iced the game, they couldn't pick up 2 yards in two plays:

2-2-NYG 38 (4:37) 34-D.Ward left end to NYG 39 for 1 yard (58-T.Cole).
3-1-NYG 39 (3:55) 34-D.Ward right end to NYG 37 for -2 yards (20-B.Dawkins). FUMBLES (20-B.Dawkins), recovered by NYG-67-K.McKenzie at NYG 35. 67-K.McKenzie to NYG 35 for no gain (58-T.Cole).

If the Eagles had scored on their drive, would everyone be talking about the terrible decision by Coughlin to run twice and not be able to pick up a first down? Or the terrible decision to not challenge the fumble on that second play that clearly wasn't a fumble and put them in 4th and 6, so they didn't get a first down on the offsides penalty on the punt?

by Kurt :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 1:22pm

No, nobody would have been talking about the decision by Coughlin to run the ball because (a) the Giants can actually run the ball, and (b) there's a difference between running on 3rd & 4th down with a lead, and running with 2 minutes left on your own side of the field with one timeout in a game you're losing.

As for the non-fumble, you're right that it wasn't a fumble, but I have to believe that the Eagles wouldv'e been a whole lot more careful about jumping offsides on 4th and 1 than they were on 4th and 6. The failure to challenge basically had no effect on the game.

by JSap :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 3:13pm

Ok, so if it wasn't a bad decision to run the ball there, would people have been talking about the players inability to pick up the 2 yards? And I actually strayed from my original point, which was to refute this part of what I was responding to:

"Without looking at advanced or mainstream statistics, I believed that Philly could put 11 guys "In the box" and the Giants still could average 6 or 7 yards per running play."

My point was that the Giants were not able to pick up 2 yards on two carries when the Eagles essentially had 11 men in the box.

As for the non-fumble, I agree they might have been more careful and not committed that penalty, but if a coach is as brilliant as challenges as we were told all night that Coughlin is, shouldn't he have challenged that call to put the Giants in a position where the Eagles would have to be very careful when rushing the punter to NOT be offsides, and to not take a chance on a running into the kicker penalty? My point is that there is a big difference in the receiving team's options when it is 4th and 2 then when it is 4th and 6.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 1:19pm

Oh please.

The Eagles played much of the game with 7 men in the box and the safety back deep doubling Burress (who managed one catch for 17 yards on a corner blitz).

When the Eagles did play with more men in the box in obvious running situations, the Giants didn't do very much. 25% of Giants rushing plays went for 2 yards or less.

The Original Andrew

by Kurt :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 2:26pm

"25% of Giants rushing plays went for 2 yards or less."

Jeez, without looking into it, I'd guess that's a pretty terrific stat for the Giants. 75% of runs go for 3 or more? How often does that happen, especially when the team runs 30+ times? Let alone forty-freaking-five times?

Also, there's no evidence at all that the Giants did poorly in obvious running situations. Before the Ward runs with 4 minutes left, which go beyond "obvious running situations" into "everybody in the building knows they're running" territory, their runs of 2 or less came on

1st & 10
2nd & 6
2nd & 7
1st & 7
2nd & 5

That's 5 of their first 39 runs which went for less than 2 yards. Which of those runs, exactly, came in obvious running situations?

by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 4:48pm

Are you really arguing that the Eagles were mostly successful stopping the run? The Giants rushed for 219 yards. That's not really spin-able.

by Andrew B :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 6:44pm

The Eagles really didn't try to stop the run. They tried to stop Burress, and they were very successful at that.

As to the 219 yards, they did it at 4.87 yards per run. That's good, but its not world-beating, and its well below the Giants average for the year, which had been 5.21.

That being said, I think the whole defensive game plan was a mistake. They should have concentrated on stopping Jacobs and let Eli try to beat them. While barely being challenged to be a part of the game, Eli completed under 55% of his passes, tossed an interception, was sacked once, and should have been flagged for intentional grounding. He obviously could have done much worse.

The Original Andrew

by Kurt :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 10:04pm

"The Eagles really didn't try to stop the run."

Maybe they should have tried harder.

"They tried to stop Burress, and they were very successful at that."

Sure. And the Rams tried to stop Coles and Cotchery on Sunday too, and by that measure did a terrific job. Also, when they really felt like defending Thomas Jones, he didn't do much. Did you know that 34% of his carries went for 2 yards or less? Way to go Rams!

"As to the 219 yards, they did it at 4.87 yards per run. That's good, but its not world-beating, and its well below the Giants average for the year, which had been 5.21."

Yeah, but the Giants aren't actually that good at rushing. It's just that everyone gameplans to shut down Plaxico Burress.

by givetomethespam... :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 5:42pm

I'm still waiting on a "Worst Special Teams DVOA Ever Watch" for the Vikings. The kick coverage looked almost competent in week 9, but then they allowed a punt return TD this week to one of the worst return men I've ever seen.

by Anonymous please? (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:17pm

Will Blackmon, worst return man you've ever seen? What in the hell gave you that impression? Sure, he ran back a punt from the endzone, which is retarded, but does that really earn him that label? He's been returning punts for not even a year now and he has 3 touchdowns. I don't know what you're looking for.

by Yakul (not verified) :: Thu, 11/13/2008 - 3:43am

Ignoring questions about the talents of Will Blackmon, I also would be interested to see the Worst Special Teams DVOA ever to know how close the Vikings are coming. There is something truly amazing about dreading every time your team has to punt. What made the experience more comical was that right before the punt that Blackmon took to the house, Troy Aikman, presumably looking at Kluwe's gross average for the season, commented "Chris Kluwe has had a good year punting the ball for the Vikings..." You could practically hear the noise of Minnesotans across the state shaking their heads in disbelief, given the bizarre "either he goes or I go" drama that seemed to play out earlier this season between Kluwe and Childress.

by sam :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 5:56pm

Jags are 4-5, not 3-6. Not that it matters.

--
sam! or the original sam from the old FO

by joon :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:01pm

and green bay didn't play tennessee. they played the vikings.

not to harp on anything, but does it seem like there have been a lot of errors in the DVOA tables and articles this year?

by Josh :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 11:11pm

I think he was referring to GB's game last week against the Titans.

by vinyltoupee (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:00pm

Seriously? FO's love affair is getting really stale here. How many games do the Eagles have to lose before your computer rankings stop having fantasies? Did your computer even watch the game? The Giants dominated the Eagles. The Eagles ARE NOT, repeat, ARE NOT, by any reasonable measure, the second best team in football.

by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 7:59pm

No, Aaron's computer didn't watch the game, and it doesn't understand the eagles' poor clock management, bad challenges, and other coaching gaffes. Basically, what DVOA is saying is that the Eagles would be a really good team if they had a good coach.

Actually, that may be a possible in-game coaching measure: Do some coaches consistently over- or underperform their team's DVOA? Is DVOA biased in favor of poor game managers? Does it make sense to compare DVOA to actual wins?:

Higher DVOA = better pregame preparation than in-game management
Higher actual wins = better in-game management than pregame prep

Of course the effect would have to be consistent over several years to be significant. And I'm not sure how to account for strength of schedule. But I bet guys like Reid and Holmgren would be exposed if you could get it to work right. And what coach's record outperforms his DVOA?

(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")

by Ashley Tate (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 8:48pm

Actually the Week 6 DVOA write-up included an extended discussion on whether DVOA favors certain teams and which teams over/under performed DVOA:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/week-6-dvoa-ratings-3

I believe the conclusion RE the Eagles was that they have underperformed DVOA in the past 3 years and overperformed in the years before that--all under Reid.

by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:08am

Actually, that was a study of whether DVOA favors West Coast offense teams, looking at all WCO teams together, with only the Eagles getting close examination. I still think it would be worth exploring on a coach-by-coach basis. Maybe there would be no significant results, but you can't know unless you've tried.

(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")

by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 5:20pm

So Philly used to overperform their DVOA. The formula for calculating DVOA changes every year... did Aaron notice this overperformance and make adjustments to the formula and effectively "overreact"?

by tuluse :: Thu, 11/13/2008 - 5:25pm

I believe he recalculates all past DVOA's with the newest formula. So they overachieved based on the newest DVOA.

by phillyangst :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 8:18pm

Hey, don't hate the [Iggles] player... hate the [sabermetrics] game!!!
DVOA loves Philadelphia!!!

by Alex51 :: Wed, 11/12/2008 - 6:39am

The Eagles ARE NOT, repeat, ARE NOT, by any reasonable measure, the second best team in football.

Maybe not. But I think I can find a reasonable measure that puts the Eagles at 3rd in the NFL: Margin of Victory. The Eagles have outscored their opponents by an average of 7.9 points/game, behind only the Giants, who rank second with 11.3 points/game, and the Titans, who rank first with 11.4 points/game.

So, the Eagles lost by 5 points to a team that is (according to MOV) about 3 points better than they are. Nothing strange about that. I think DVOA isn't being all that crazy here. Unless...

That's it! MOV loves Philadelphia!! Scoring more points that your opponent just makes your team look like it's good in the eyes of these crazy statistical rankings.

Did your computer even watch the game?

I find the thought of Aaron Schatz setting his computer on his couch next to him to watch the game (with a webcam, maybe?) hilarious.

by Dales :: Thu, 11/13/2008 - 7:22pm

I find it very easy to believe that the Eagles are among the very best in the league this year.

I also find it very easy to believe that the Eagles are almost as good as the Giants this year, and maybe even (despite the records) better.

What I don't find easy to believe is the idea that they played like it on Sunday night or were almost as good as the Giants were that night. They didn't and they weren't.

You should save the 1 ratings for people who are just trolling or being a-holes, and not for people who are making good-faith arguments or engaging in discussions that lead to good information on both sides of the arguments coming out, by the way.

Peace.

by Alex51 :: Fri, 11/14/2008 - 12:29am

You should save the 1 ratings for people who are just trolling or being a-holes, and not for people who are making good-faith arguments or engaging in discussions that lead to good information on both sides of the arguments coming out, by the way.

Usually, I save the 0 ratings for people who are just trolling. And while I don't doubt that your arguments were made in good faith, I thought they weren't very well supported, at least by FO standards (if I were rating you by Yahoo! message board standards, it would've been a 5, but come on, this is FO).

Specifically:

-You used a very small sample size to reach a conclusion in here:

And I believe the response to that is that the Eagles (ETA- recent, three and a half year) ability to underperform DVOA is becoming difficult to dismiss as a fluke.

And if you'd looked at a larger sample (like the last six and a half years, or the entire DVOA era), you probably would've noticed that the Eagles have shown no general pattern of over or under performing their DVOA during the DVOA era or Andy Reid's tenure as coach, which would undercut your argument.

-Here, you seemed a little overly critical towards DVOA, although that might not have been your intention. Also, I'm not sure what evidence you based your argument on:

DVOA apparently does not understand that while teams similar to the Eagles will score touchdowns x percent of the times in the two minute drill, the Eagles won't, and that this is repeatable.

If you want to argue that DVOA is missing something about the Eagles' two minute drill, your argument should include some evidence about their two minute drill. For all I know, the Eagles might not even be below average in the two minute drill, or being bad in the two minute drill might not be repeatable in the way you claim. Now, having watched the Eagles' two minute drill, I wouldn't be surprised if they were consistently bad in that area, but I'd need some specific evidence before I'd believe that DVOA was wrong, and my subjective impressions were right. If you have that sort of information, great, share it. If not, your argument is being based on your own subjective impressions, and I'm not sure why I should trust those over DVOA.

-And here, you used a question begging argument:

Anyhow, that game Sunday was a perfect example of a game that wasn't as close as the score and wasn't as close as DVOA seems to think it was. If those two teams played 100 games with each team performing at the same basic level of performance as they did on Sunday, the Giants would win a substantial majority of them.

The game Sunday was only an example of a game that wasn't as close as the score/DVOA thinks it was if we assume that the Giants would win a substantial majority of the time if both teams played 100 games just like they did on Sunday, which is the whole point in question. We don't think the Giants would win a substantial majority of those games, so the argument comes down to your subjective beliefs about 100 hypothetical games vs. our subjective beliefs about 100 hypothetical games.

That said, I will agree that I was too harsh initially, and while I still don't think that post was your best, it wasn't bad enough to warrant a 1.

by Boston Dan :: Fri, 11/14/2008 - 4:35pm

"Did your computer even watch the game?"

Priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Pete (not verified) :: Tue, 11/11/2008 - 6:09pm

Will access to the new stats defense vs. receivers table throw into question PFP07's maxim, "Two fundamental matchup concepts that will help/guide your sit/start decisions: (1) QBs and RBs lose ab