FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

Depends on who you typically talk with. Kirks bad throws were frequently about his footwork. He faded back at times, his base would get wide rather than stepping in, he had some very awkward moments under pressure - he struggled with several things DH does. 

 

I guess what I am asking/saying is that can a QB have traditionally bad footwork, yet it works for him?  In other words, like a basketball player with an unorthodox looking jump shot that he sinks on a regular clip?

[volsmet]

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I guess what I am asking/saying is that can a QB have traditionally bad footwork, yet it works for him?  In other words, like a basketball player with an unorthodox looking jump shot that he sinks on a regular clip?

 

I don’t think you can make consistent passes, to moving targets, v 4.4 defenders, if your feet aren’t consistently putting your hips & shoulders in position to make the throw, with some velocity, to a precise point. 

 

To your comparison, QBs can have awkward deliveries, Rivers does, but the shooters you reference have their feet/base/shoulders/head lined up 95 times out of 100. 

[volsmet]

The TE & right tackle set up this protection. The TE stalls, slowing the blitz long enough for the back to cross the line & pick it up. The tackle sets inside, forcing his man outside his right shoulder, giving the pulling guard an extra step to pick him up, then the tackle doubles the middle, ensuring DH has a place to step up. It’s really pretty special to see this stuff executed so well in college.

 

Here the TE & RT influence rushers they have no intention of blocking. Beautiful.

 

 

[NickyJ]

20 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

RG3 was a narcissistic head case who wasn't a "Team Player"  and resisted coaching..He considered himself a NFL QB on day 1.

I'd be kind of concerned if we signed a QB who's first public statement is "I don't consider myself an NFL QB" lol

[Conn]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Nah man.  RGIII was the best QB prospect I ever watched.  Better than Watson and Mayfield.  Better than Haskins.  Even a little bit better than Luck.  He was a Heisman Trophy winner that outperformed Luck in 2011 and 2012.  He was a brilliant passer and I remember a point during the 2011 season when he had more touchdown passes than incompletions.  He had the talent to become what Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes are today.  But great prospects get ruined all of the time.  He suffered a serious injury and ended up with a horrible team and coaching situation.  Many a prospect has failed due to those circumstances.  OTOH Wilson and Mahomes stayed healthy and ended up on great teams with great coaching and management situations and thus they thrived and realized their potential.

 

Agreed, and I tried to address in that post that I agree that RG3 was a great prospect in his own right, definitely a better overall prospect if we're being honest. 

 

But my main point was I personally always thought, and I think most at the time thought, that Griffin's biggest question mark was if he could make the transition into a "true" pocket passer. As special as he was he never needed to be "just" that, but a lot of his success as a passer as a rookie was also a combo of scheme/playcalling (RO and PA) along with the threat of his legs. 

 

Me personally, and most people that I knew...I never thought that Griffin had an amazing, football-processing computer as a brain. I never thought it was likely that he'd grow to the point where he could dissect defenses like Manning, Brees, or Brady. I thought he'd win in other ways. Even aside from his athleticism he had an incredible arm as a passer. But I never thought he was going to become a genius at dissecting D's. I do think that possibility exists with Haskins

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

2 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

I'd be kind of concerned if we signed a QB who's first public statement is "I don't consider myself an NFL QB" lol

On Day 1 ?? None are..

[NickyJ]

9 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

On Day 1 ?? None are..

I dunno, when he gets drafted to an NFL team and its coach says "this guy is our QB", it seems safe to say he's not an NCAA QB or a CFL QB. If he starts saying he's Batman, THEN you've got a head case problem.

[Burgundy Yoda]

Haskins throws look really good to me, just speaking of the release time, throw mechanics, velocity and ball placement. To me Keenum looks good too, he doesn't have the arm talent but he's more than solid with his footwork. His issue is he won't put fans in the seats, which I'm hoping wouldn't be a reason we start Haskins, but I'm sure it will be. Denver was having a hard time filling selling out tickets last season, which is pretty rare for that franchise. 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I guess what I am asking/saying is that can a QB have traditionally bad footwork, yet it works for him?  In other words, like a basketball player with an unorthodox looking jump shot that he sinks on a regular clip?

 

What successful NFL QB has poor footwork? I know people like to talk about Mahomes having "unorthodox" mechanics and footwork but IMO that isn't really all that true. Yes, he makes some wild off-platform throws at times but in general his footwork is pretty good now and, more importantly, consistent.

 

However, watch his highlight videos from his 2016 Texas Tech season and then his 2018 Chiefs season back to back. His footwork is night and day different. His footwork in college was truly bad at times and was incredibly inconsistent. It's obvious that Reid and company worked with him on that a ton in the year he sat and learned. IMO if they'd thrown him in there year 1 as a rookie, he would have really struggled and it probably would have hindered his development. 

 

[ThePackisback]

In your opinion what was the best Redskins team ever?

[volsmet]

3 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

In your opinion what was the best Redskins team ever?

 

https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/2017/06/23/1991-redskins-labeled-again-as-greatest-team-ever/

 

Quote

 

The 1991 Washington Redskins have been recognized over the years as the greatest team ever. USA TODAY hailed the ’91 Super Bowl winning unit as the best team in NFL history.

That narrative continues as Football Outsiders — content is published on ESPN — using a measurement called DVOA (defense-adjusted value over average) recognized the 1991 Redskins as the best team over the past 30 seasons.

 

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2014/historical-dvoa-estimates

 

DVOA of Champions 1950-2013 (estimated 1950-1988)
Rank	Team	Total DVOA	Offense	Defense	ST
1	WAS 1991	56.9%	27.2%	-21.1%	8.6%
2	GB 1962	47.9%	21.4%	-20.7%	5.8%
3	GB 1961	46.0%	27.6%	-11.6%	6.8%
4	CHI 1985	45.3%	12.5%	-26.8%	6.0%
5	GB 1996	41.9%	15.2%	-19.3%	7.4%
6	SEA 2013	40.0%	9.4%	-25.8%	4.8%
7	MIA 1973	38.4%	19.5%	-15.6%	3.3%
8	KC 1969	37.6%	7.3%	-25.6%	4.6%
9	CLE1 1950	37.5%	14.9%	-14.9%	7.7%
10	DAL 1971	36.3%	23.3%	-11.3%	1.7%
11	SF 1989	36.0%	26.2%	-11.5%	-1.7%
12	DAL 1977	35.1%	24.8%	-9.6%	0.7%
13	DAL 1992	35.0%	23.6%	-9.5%	1.9%
14	PIT 1975	35.0%	13.5%	-14.4%	7.2%
15	GB 1966	34.9%	20.1%	-16.2%	-1.4%
16	MIA 1972	34.5%	18.5%	-14.8%	1.2%
Rank	Team	Total DVOA	Offense	Defense	ST
17	NE 2004	34.2%	23.3%	-10.7%	0.2%
18	STL 1999	34.0%	17.7%	-13.5%	2.8%
19	PIT 1979	33.4%	13.9%	-20.2%	-0.7%
20	DAL 1995	32.7%	29.6%	0.9%	4.0%
21	BALC 1958	32.6%	19.0%	-12.8%	0.9%
22	DEN 1998	32.5%	34.5%	4.3%	2.3%
23	SF 1984	32.5%	28.6%	0.5%	4.3%
24	CLE1 1954	31.9%	15.1%	-15.2%	1.7%
25	TB 2002	31.6%	-3.8%	-31.8%	3.6%
26	NYG 1990	30.8%	10.5%	-14.4%	5.9%
27	GB 1967	30.1%	8.8%	-12.9%	8.4%
28	PIT 1974	30.1%	-3.4%	-28.9%	4.6%
29	LARM 1951	29.9%	35.0%	-2.3%	-7.4%
30	DEN 1997	29.6%	19.4%	-5.9%	4.3%
31	NYJ 1968	29.3%	16.8%	-15.6%	-3.2%
32	SF 1994	27.6%	18.9%	-7.5%	1.2%
Rank	Team	Total DVOA	Offense	Defense	ST
33	PIT 2005	27.1%	12.0%	-13.5%	1.6%
34	SF 1988	26.9%	14.2%	-10.6%	2.1%
35	CHI 1963	26.4%	1.9%	-26.7%	-2.2%
36	PIT 2008	26.0%	-1.5%	-29.0%	-1.5%
37	DET 1952	25.7%	9.6%	-9.1%	7.0%
38	DAL 1993	24.8%	21.8%	0.8%	3.8%
39	BAL 2000	24.1%	-8.1%	-23.8%	8.4%
40	GB 2010	23.0%	11.5%	-13.9%	-2.4%
41	NO 2009	21.3%	24.3%	-0.4%	-3.4%
42	NE 2003	20.7%	1.2%	-18.7%	0.8%
43	CLE1 1955	20.4%	17.2%	-5.8%	-2.6%
44	OAK 1976	18.8%	24.8%	9.4%	3.4%
45	WAS 1982	17.8%	5.7%	-7.3%	4.8%
46	IND 2006	16.4%	28.5%	8.5%	-3.6%
47	PIT 1978	16.2%	2.7%	-12.4%	1.1%
48	GB 1965	13.8%	-2.1%	-15.2%	0.7%
Rank	Team	Total DVOA	Offense	Defense	ST
49	DET 1953	13.5%	5.8%	-6.4%	1.3%
50	SF 1981	13.3%	11.0%	-5.8%	-3.5%
51	LARD 1983	12.5%	0.1%	-9.0%	3.4%
52	NYG 1986	11.6%	3.9%	-7.9%	-0.1%
53	BAL 1959	11.6%	12.5%	1.0%	0.0%
54	NYG 1956	11.3%	10.5%	-4.2%	-3.4%
55	PHI 1960	10.8%	10.2%	2.6%	3.2%
56	BAL 2012	9.8%	3.0%	2.2%	9.0%
57	CLE 1964	8.8%	23.0%	19.8%	5.6%
58	NYG 2011	8.4%	10.5%	2.4%	0.3%
59	NE 2001	8.0%	3.4%	-1.5%	3.1%
60	WAS 1987	6.7%	10.1%	2.9%	-0.5%
61	DET 1957	6.1%	0.8%	-5.0%	0.3%
62	NYG 2007	1.8%	-1.1%	-3.8%	-0.9%
63	OAK 1980	0.0%	-7.7%	-7.6%	0.1%
64	BAL 1970	-3.3%	-1.1%	3.9%	1.6%

 

 

 

Best Total DVOA 1950-2013 (estimated 1950-1988)
Rank	Team	Total DVOA	Offense	Defense	ST
1	WAS 1991*	56.9%	27.2%	-21.1%	8.6%
2	NE 2007	52.9%	43.5%	-5.8%	3.6%
3	GB 1962*	47.9%	21.4%	-20.7%	5.8%
4	GB 1961*	46.0%	27.6%	-11.6%	6.8%
5	CHI 1985*	45.3%	12.5%	-26.8%	6.1%
6	NE 2010	44.6%	42.2%	2.3%	4.7%
7	OAK 1967	44.3%	11.6%	-26.0%	6.8%
8	PIT 1976	42.7%	10.4%	-30.1%	2.1%
9	GB 1996*	41.9%	15.2%	-19.3%	7.4%
10	BALC 1968	40.9%	13.0%	-21.0%	6.8%
11	SF 1987	40.8%	25.0%	-13.4%	2.4%
12	SF 1995	40.1%	18.6%	-23.7%	-2.2%
13	SEA 2013*	40.0%	9.4%	-25.8%	4.8%
14	DAL 1968	39.5%	17.1%	-15.7%	6.7%
15	CLE1 1953	39.2%	40.2%	5.6%	4.7%
16	KC 1968	38.8%	15.6%	-13.2%	10.0%
17	MIA 1973*	38.4%	19.5%	-15.6%	3.3%
18	SEA 2012	38.3%	18.5%	-14.1%	5.7%
19	PIT 2004	37.6%	16.3%	-18.9%	2.4%
20	KC 1969*	37.6%	7.3%	-25.6%	4.6%

[ThePackisback]

What does that DVOA mean?

[volsmet]

8 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

What does that DVOA mean?

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

THE SHORT VERSION:

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.

Please feel free to contact us with questions and comments about our original statistics using the contact form.

• DVOA EXPLAINED
• DYAR EXPLAINED
• SPECIAL TEAMS STATS
• DRIVE STATS
• ADJUSTED LINE YARDS and other offensive/defensive line stats

 

DVOA EXPLAINED

One running back runs for three yards. Another running back runs for three yards. Which is the better run? This sounds like a stupid question, but it isn’t. In fact, this question is at the heart of nearly all of the analysis on Football Outsiders.

Several factors can differentiate one three-yard run from another. What is the down and distance? Is it third-and-2 or second-and-15? Where on the field is the ball? Does the player get only three yards because he hits the goal line and scores? Is the player’s team up by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, and thus running out the clock; or down by two touchdowns, and thus facing a defense that is playing purely against the pass? Is the running back playing against the porous defense of the Raiders, or the stalwart defense of the Bears?

Conventional NFL statistics value plays based solely on their net yardage. The NFL determines the best players by adding up all their yards no matter what situations they came in or how many plays it took to get them. Now, why would they do that? Football has one objective -- to get to the end zone -- and two ways to achieve that -- by gaining yards and achieving first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player’s value or a team’s performance. All the yards in the world won’t help a team win if they all come in six-yard chunks on third-and-10. 

The popularity of fantasy football only exacerbates the problem. Fans have gotten used to judging players based on how much they help fantasy teams win and lose, not how much they help real teams win and lose. Typical fantasy scoring further skews things by counting the yard between the one and the goal line as 61 times more important than all the other yards on the field (each yard worth 0.1 points, a touchdown worth 6). Let’s say Larry Fitzgerald catches a pass on third-and-15 and goes 50 yards but gets tackled two yards from the goal line, and then Andre Ellington takes the ball on first-and-goal from the two-yard line and plunges in for the score. Has Ellington done something special? Not really. When an offense gets the ball on first-and-goal at the two-yard line, they're expected to score a touchdown five out of six times. Ellington is getting credit for the work done by the passing game.

Doing a better job of distributing credit for scoring points and winning games is the goal of DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. DVOA breaks down every single play of the NFL season, assigning each play a value based on both total yards and yards towards a first down, based on work done by Pete Palmer, Bob Carroll, and John Thorn in their seminal book, The Hidden Game of Football. On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45 percent of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60 percent of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success.

We then expand upon that basic idea with a more complicated system of “success points,” improved over the past few years with a lot of mathematics and a bit of trial and error. A successful play is worth one point; an unsuccessful play, zero points with fractional points in between (e.g., eight yards on third-and-10 is worth 0.54 “success points”). Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards (assuming those yards result in a first down), four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. Losing three or more yards is -1 point. Interceptions occurring on fourth down during the last two minutes of a game incur no penalty whatsoever, but all others average -6 points, with an adjustment for the length of the pass and the location of the interception (since an interception tipped at the line is more likely to produce a long return than an interception on a 40-yard pass). A fumble is worth anywhere from -1.7 to -4.0 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense -- no matter who actually recovers the fumble. Red zone plays get a bonus: 20 percent for team offense, five percent for team defense, and 10 percent for individual players. There is a bonus given for a touchdown, which acknowledges that the goal line is significantly more difficult to cross than the previous 99 yards (although this bonus is nowhere near as large as the one used in fantasy football).

(Our system is a bit more complex than the one in Hidden Game thanks to our subsequent research, which added larger penalties for turnovers, the fractional points, and a slightly higher baseline for success on first down. The reason why all fumbles are counted, no matter whether they are recovered by the offense or defense, is explained in FO Basics.)

Every single play run in the NFL gets a “success value” based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and the team’s lead or deficit in the game score. Teams are always compared to the overall offensive average, as the team made its own choice whether to pass or rush. When it comes to individual players, however, rushing plays are compared to other rushing plays, passing plays to other passing plays, tight ends to tight ends, wideouts to wideouts, and so on.

Going back to our example of the three-yard rush, if Player A gains three yards under a set of circumstances in which the average NFL running back gains only one yard, then Player A has a certain amount of value above others at his position. Likewise, if Player B gains three yards on a play on which, under similar circumstances, an average NFL back gains four yards, that Player B has negative value relative to others at his position. Once we make all our adjustments, we can evaluate the difference between this player’s rate of success and the expected success rate of an average running back in the same situation (or between the opposing defense and the average defense in the same situation, etc.). Add up every play by a certain team or player, divide by the total of the various baselines* for success in all those situations, and you get VOA, or Value Over Average.

The biggest variable in football is the fact that each team plays a different schedule against teams of disparate quality. By adjusting each play based on the opposing defense’s average success in stopping that type of play over the course of a season, we get DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Rushing and passing plays are adjusted based on down and location on the field; passing plays are also adjusted based on how the defense performs against passes to running backs, tight ends, or wide receivers. Defenses are adjusted based on the average success of the offenses they are facing. (Yes, technically the defensive stats are actually “offense-adjusted.” If it seems weird, think of the “D” in “DVOA” as standing for “opponent-Dependent” or something.)

The final step in calculating DVOA involves normalizing each year's ratings. As you may know, offensive levels in the NFL have gone up and down over the years. Right now, the overall level of offense in the league is probably at its highest level of all time. Therefore, we need to ensure that DVOA in a given season isn't skewed by league environment. 

For teams, DVOA is normalized so that league averages for offense and defense are 0%. (However, because pass plays are more efficient than run plays, league averages for team passing and team rushing are not zero.) For players, DVOA is normalized separately for individual passing, individual rushing, and the three individual receiving groups (wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs) so that the league average for each is 0%.

Of course, one of the hardest parts of understanding a new statistic is interpreting its scale. To use DVOA, you have to know what numbers represent good performance and what numbers represent bad performance. We’ve made that easy. In all cases, 0% represents league-average. A positive DVOA represents a situation that favors the offense, while a negative DVOA represents a situation that favors the defense. This is why the best offenses have positive DVOA ratings (last year, Green Bay led the league at +24.7%) and the best defenses have negative DVOA ratings (with Seattle number one in 2014 at -16.8%). In most years, the best and worst offenses tend to rate around ± 30%, while the best and worst defenses tend to rate around ± 25%. For starting players, the scale tends to reach roughly ± 40% for passing and receiving, and ± 30% for rushing. As you might imagine, some players with fewer attempts will surpass both extremes.

DVOA has three main advantages over more traditional ways to judge NFL performance. First, by subtracting defense DVOA from offense DVOA (and adding in special teams DVOA, which is described below), we can create a set of team rankings that's based on play-by-play efficiency rather than total yards. Because DVOA does a better job of explaining past wins and predicting future wins than total yards, it gives a more accurate picture of how much better (or worse) a team really is relative to the rest of the league.

Because it compares each play only to plays with similar circumstances, this advantage also applies vis-a-vis situational team rankings. The list of top DVOA offenses on third down, for example, is more accurate than the conventional NFL conversion statistic because it takes into account that converting third-and-long is more difficult than converting third-and-short, and that a turnover is worse than an incomplete pass because it eliminates the opportunity to move the other team back with a punt on fourth down. The same could be said about plays on fourth down or in the red zone.

Second, unlike formulas based on comparing drives rather than individual plays, DVOA can be separated into a myriad of splits (e.g., by down, by week, by distance needed for a first down, etc.). Therefore, we're able to break teams and players down to find strengths and weaknesses in a variety of situations. All Pittsburgh third downs can be compared to how an average team does on third down. Josh McCown and Mike Glennon can each be compared to how an average quarterback performs in the red zone, or with a lead, or in the second half of the game. This doesn't just give us a better idea of which team or player is better. More importantly, it helps us understand whythey're better, and therefore allows us to offer prescriptions for improvement in the future.

Finally, a third advantage of DVOA is that normalization makes our comparisons of current teams and players to past teams and players (going back to 1989) more accurate than those based on traditional statistics like wins or total yards, as well as those based on more sophisticated metrics that aren't normalized (e.g., expected points added, passer rating differential, etc.). For instance, which Denver Broncos team had the better offense: the 2013 edition with Peyton Manning, or the 1998 club led by Terrell Davis? Going by total yardage (7,317 vs. 6,092) or even yards per play (6.3 vs. 5.9), it's not even a contest. The 2013 team were clearly better. However, this ignores the fact that the average NFL offense was much more pass-oriented, and thus more efficient, in 2013 than in 1998. If we take the difference in offensive environment into account by using DVOA, it turns out that the 1998 Broncos offense was slightly better relative to the rest of the league (34.5% to 33.5%).

*It should be noted that certain plays are included in DVOA for offense but not for defense. Other plays are included for both, but scored differently. This leads to separate baselines on each side of the ball. For instance

• Only four total penalties are included. Two penalties count as pass plays on both sides of the ball: intentional grounding and defensive pass interference. The other two penalties are included for offense only: false starts and delay of game. Because the inclusion of these penalties means a group of negative plays that don’t count as either passes or runs, the league averages for pass offense and run offense are higher than the league averages for pass defense and run defense.
• Aborted snaps and incomplete backwards lateral passes are only penalized on offense, not rewarded on defense.
• Adjustments for playing from behind or with a lead in the fourth quarter are different for offense and defense, as are adjustments for the final two minutes of the first half when the offense is not near field-goal range.
• Offense gets a slight penalty and defense gets a slight bonus for games indoors.

 

[ThePackisback]

Is it basically saying the Skins offense and defense were very good?

[volsmet]

1 minute ago, ThePackisback said:

Is it basically saying the Skins offense and defense were very good?

 

[clskinsfan]

Definitely the 91 Skins. That defense doesnt get enough credit. They only allowed 300 yards 7 times that season. And never allowed 400 yards in a single game. The Philly loss pissed me off so bad that year. Philly had a 75 yard INT return for a TD to start the game. Then we dominated them until the 4th quarter. Philly scored 17 points in the 4th to win the game. 

[ThePackisback]

13 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

I know I'm just Stupid trying to understand the definition lol.

[volsmet]

16 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

I know I'm just Stupid trying to understand the definition lol.

 

Not at all. The gif just means the 91 skins weren’t merely very good, the 91 Skins are the goat.

 

[Malapropismic Depository]

It seems like they're constantly trying to come up with new formulas as a measurement to evaluate players, as if it all can be scientifically reduced to a formula.

But not only is this not an exact science, but most of these formulas don't weigh in a lot of other factors, so they really don't carry a lot of meaning or weight.

Plus, even though it uses math and facts and statistics, the person who created the formula was being subjective when he decided that this particular formula

is the way to go.

It has some value, but not a whole lot.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

46 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

It seems like they're constantly trying to come up with new formulas as a measurement to evaluate players, as if it all can be scientifically reduced to a formula.

But not only is this not an exact science, but most of these formulas don't weigh in a lot of other factors, so they really don't carry a lot of meaning or weight.

Plus, even though it uses math and facts and statistics, the person who created the formula was being subjective when he decided that this particular formula

is the way to go.

It has some value, but not a whole lot.

 

I think you should take another look at what DVOA does.  It's a play-by-play analysis.  The nature of the stat is not subjective, it's objective.  I'm going to try and boil DVOA down so the wall of text linked above isn't as cumbersome.

 

First, the stat starts out as VOA.  VOA stands for Value Over Average.  Let's do a quick example.

 

It's 1st & 10.  The play happens and Team 1 gains 3 yards.  It then compares that 3 yard gain to the average outcome across the season on that down and distance.  If the average gain across the NFL is 4 yards instead of the 3 yards that Team 1 just got, then that play resulted in a slightly below average outcome.

 

Next play, Team 1, who gained 3 yards on 1st down is now facing a 2nd & 7.  Whatever the outcome of that is, it compares that to the average, across the league, for all plays on 2nd down with 7 yards to go.

 

Now you're thinking well, Team 1 was playing against a good defense, that's misleading.  That's where DVOA comes in.  It stands for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.  So it takes VOA and adjusts it based on the expected outcome of teams playing against that defense.

 

DVOA is useless as a stat until the sample size increases.  It starts meaning something around Week 4, and gets more accurate every week from there.  So the start of every season DVOA is really just VOA, and then once a few games are played, they start adding in the adjustments for quality of defenses faced.

 

P.S.  Two stats that could be argued are a bit subjective, are QB Rating and ANYA.  It's not compared to league average, there is no baseline, and you can argue how it's weighting interceptions, incompletions, etc etc.  Two stats that are highly subjective, are ESPN's QBR and PFF's grades.  By nature, both of those have to be subjective stats, now both outlets try and do things to make them less subjective and more objective, but it's impossible to rule out subjectivity completely.

[Skinsinparadise]

I just can't resist 

 

 

 

 

[ThePackisback]

How bout your other championship teams? Would you guys say the years you won it then back in the 80s were you the best team in football that year?

[HTTRDynasty]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I just can't resist 

 

 

 

 

 

Love it.

 

[ThePackisback]

I hope the Giants new QB is a bust lol.