American Gridiron

What Did the Packers Owe Favre?

2009-05-08T15:17:00.000-07:00

In 1998, Brett Favre was coming off his third consecutive MVP season. His team had gone 13-3 and to its second straight Super Bowl the year before.

Peyton Manning entered his rookie year for the Indianapolis Colts, who had gone 3-13.

From 1998 on, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning remarkably have started every game. Here are the results:

Favre made 6 play-off appearences; Manning nine.
Favre made 5 Pro Bowls; Manning nine.
Favre won zero MVP's; Manning three.
Favre won three play-off games; Manning seven.
Favre got to and won zero Super Bowls; Manning got to one and won.
Favre threw 282 touchdowns; Manning 333
Favre threw 215 interceptions; Manning 165
Favre went 106-70; Manning went 117-59
Favre had a passer rating of 85 or better six times; Manning had a rating of 95 or better six times (Favre just once), and of 85 or better nine times.

If we throw out the first year, 1998, Manning looks even better compared to Favre. And let's not forget Favre was outplayed on the Frozen Tundra in play-off games by Michael Vick and Eli Manning.

Donovan McNabb came into the League in 1999. His worst year for throwing interceptions equals Favre's career best. (Career interception percentage for McNabb: 2.1; Favre: 3.3)

I don't know if McNabb is a Hall of Fame quarterback. Indeed, trade rumors have swirled around him for years. And he's won a heck of a lot more play-off games in his first ten seasons in the league than Favre did in his last ten in Green Bay. Indeed, the oft-benched Kurt Warner has more meaningful accomplishments in the last ten years than Favre, and he's no lock for the Hall either.

Here's what it comes down to with Favre: when he entered the League, it had Young, Aikman, Moon, Kelly, Marino, and Elway. And from 1994-2007 he was playing better than these six Hall of Famers.

But just when he was entering his prime years, his production fell off. He started throwing more interceptions again. This decade, he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Warner and McNabb, along with Garcia, Hasselbeck, and Brees. But nowhere near the same breath as Manning and Tom Brady, the only current sure-fire Hall of Fame quarterbacks (although the younger class beginning with Eli Manning, Big Ben, and Rivers may join them).

In Favre's last eleven years, and last ten at Green Bay, he has been good, not great. He hasn't played like a Hall of Famer. And it raises the question: what did the Packers owe Favre?

He resented that he had to go to mini-camp on his daughter's graduation day. That's why you're paid several millions a year.

He was unhappy the Packers didn't sign Randy Moss in 2007. Though you had your best year in the last ten without him, and so did the team.

He retired, then was shocked that by training camp the Packers had made plans to go in a different direction. Even so, they still gave him the opportunity to start. His unfounded bitterness toward the organization forced a trade.

Hey Brett, if you had consistently played closer to the level you had played in your younger years, and if you hadn't retired, the Packers would have been more enthusiastic to bring you back. But the Packers didn't owe you any greater courtesy and deference than the Eagles owe McNabb.

Whatever goes inside your head to now "get revenge" on the Packers is probably the same area of the brain that causes you to throw up bone-headed interceptions.

Get over it.

If you want to continue to play, you shouldn't have retired from the Jets. And if you want to just get back at the Packers, grow up already!

Super Bowl Thoughts

2009-01-31T16:10:00.000-08:00

[Cross-posted at Independent Country]

Apparently, Bruce Springsteen has a new CD. I won't begrudge him playing the first single at the Super Bowl halftime show, whatever it is. But he has two choices after that:

a) be a nostalgia act, playing "Born in the USA" and "Born to Run." Or perhaps "Glory Days" and "Hungry Heart." In other words - and with all due respect to these songs - he could be lame in the sense of giving the crowd what he thinks they want to hear, as opposed to what he wants to perform..
b) be a great rock & roll act and make the halftime show entertaining. In this instance, I'd suggest a medley of "Tenth Avenue Freeze Out" transitioning to "Blinded By the Light" (which will wake up a large segment of the audience that doesn't even know it's a Springsteen song.) But if I had to choose, I'd pull out all the stops with a rendition of "Rosalita" that goes on as long as time allows.

As for the game, you can tell who the underdog is by the word "if." A year ago it was, "if the Giants can get to Tom Brady, they have a chance." Which means, the Patriots are presumably the better team, but this one thing may turn the tide for the Giants.

If the Steelers and Cardinals each played their normal game, each doing what they do well, the Steelers look like the favorite. That's because there's no "if's" about them; if they play well, they should win. The "ifs" fall on the Cardinals. If there is more than one "if," the bleaker it looks for the Cards, because it means lots of things have to go right for them. But at the end of the day, I think only one "if' matters: how well Kurt Warner responds to the Steelers' packages of disguised blitzes. If he can make accurate throws, it's a close game. And NOBODY knows whether this will happen or not.

The problem with predictions even less than 72 hours before kickoff is that no one knows what might happen to one of the teams, such as a drug overdose, an arrest, or a disappearance, on the eve of the game. That may be a demoralizing force, and will especially be so if it happens with the Cardinals, the team that's "happy to be here" with "nothing to lose." But there's little reason to believe this will happen. Teams have learned from the Bengals '89, Falcons '99, and Raiders '03.

The wild card is Ben Roethlisberger's nerves. History records him as a Super Bowl-winning quarterback, but he played terribly in that game three years ago, where the officiating was sub-par and seemed to work against the Seahawks. If Ben feels pressure to "redeem" himself by putting on an MVP performance, he might fold for that very reason.

I suspect that Warner will play well, that Roethlisberger may not play quite as well, and the Cards will eke out the victory. Or at least cover the seven-point spread.

The Exceptional Kurt Warner

2009-01-20T16:14:00.000-08:00

By my count, there have been 52 quarterbacks who have started a Super Bowl.

17 have started two games. Of these, ten are in the Hall of Fame, and four are active.

10 have started three or more games. Of these, eight are in the Hall of Fame, with the other two active: Tom Brady and Kurt Warner.

Only five have gone to the Super Bowl under two or more coaches. Warner is the only one who has gone with three different head coaches.

Only two have gone with two different teams: Craig Morton and Warner.

Nine years separate Warner's first and last appearance. Only John Elway (12) saw a longer span between his first and last appearance. Eight years separate Joe Montana's first and last.

Most quarterbacks, even Hall of Famers, tend to have their greatest run of success under one head coach and one core nucleus of players.

Indeed, even among head coaches, onlyBill Cowher (10) Bill Parcells (10), Dan Reeves (12) and Don Shula (12) have a greater number of years between their first and last Super Bowls.

Warner certainly has had one of the most unusual careers in NFL history.

And Then There Were Two

2009-01-16T19:23:00.000-08:00

As of this Monday, there will be four living ex-Presidents, but just two active NFL head coaches who have won a Super Bowl.

Cowher and Parcells retired two years ago.

Gibbs re-retired, and Billick was fired, one year ago.

Holmgren and Dungy resigned this year. Gruden and Shanahan were fired.

That leaves Bilichek and Coughlin.

But they will be joined by another in 16 days. And who knows, Shanahan and/or Gruden may have a new job by then.

The Schottenheimer Rule

2009-01-01T04:31:00.000-08:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In all, Schottenheimer had 13 play-off appearances and just two losing season in 20 1/2 years as an NFL head coach. He may not have been a conference or league champion, but he was a winner, which couldn't be said of his replacements. . . .

It is rare that making a change, when things are going well, leads to long-term success.

Telling Stats

2008-12-30T11:29:00.000-08:00

Telling Stats from NFL.com:

Of the 9 teams that rushed for 2000 yards (125/game), six went to the playoffs, including the top five. (In sixth place was 11-5 New England.)

Of the 11 teams that passed for 3600 yards (225/game), five went to the playoffs.

Of the twelve teams with a passer rating of 85, six went to the playoffs and just one had a losing season; 4 of the top six made the playoffs.

Six of the top seven in total defense made the playoffs.

Seven of the top ten in rushing defense made the playoffs, including the top four.

The top three, and six of the top ten, in passing defense made the playoffs, but five were in the bottom half of the league.

Six of the top 9 in passer rating defense made the playoffs.

The Aikman Efficiency Ratings seem more effective in translating statistics to team success:

All 12 of the playoff teams were in the top 21, including 8 of the top 12

8 of top ten in defense made the playoffs.

In the combined rankings, the top 9 made the playoffs; only Arizone at #20 was out of the top 15.

Green Bay, which went 6-10, lost seven games by 4 points or less, and scored more points than they gave up, finished #13.

The Football Outsiders ranking is here. Green Bay is #16 and only Arizona is out of the top 14 (again, at 20). While the rankings are close to Aikman's Aikman seemed to have a more accurate picture. The Outsiders had 9-6-1 Philly #1 overall, compared to Aikman's 11-5 Ravens.

On Passer Rating

2008-12-26T07:49:00.000-08:00

One of my regrets over the past two years is that I should have blogged here. So here goes . . .

I predict that the San Diego Chargers will defeat the Denver Broncos this Sunday and win the 2008 AFC West Title.

The reason? Phillip Rivers.

His passer rating is 104.0. It is unlikely to dip under 100 for the season.

And in ten previous seasons (1998-2007), all twenty teams who had a qualifying quarterback with a rating of 100 or more made the play-offs. Rivers is the only qb with a 100+ rating this year.

A rating of 100 means the passing game is so efficient that it can overcome other team weaknesses. The worst team with a 100+ passer was the 2004 Vikings, who at 8-8 still made the playoffs. From 98-07, these teams averaged 12 wins.

To buttress my case, over the same period 67 quarterbacks had a rating of 90 or better, and 54 led their teams to the play-offs. Only six had a losing season. This year, entering the last week, 11 qb's have a rating of 89 or better; 8 are going to the playoffs (or at least have ten wins) and only one, Aaron Rogers (91.8) is guaranteed a losing season. (Matt Schaub is at 89.7 and might have a losing season; he also might not reach 90.)

Denver qb Jay Cutler's rating is 87, 17 points behind Rivers.

The trend is the same year in and year out. There may be a few ratings leaders who don't make the playoffs, and some quarterbacks with average ratings lead their team to the playoffs. But for the most part, the ratings leaders are also the playoff qbs, and the higher the rating (like Rivers's), the more likely this is the case.

One last example: When Brett Favre's rating has been under 90, he's gone to the playoffs once in six seasons; when he's over 90, he's gone all eleven times. (This year, he's at 84 and the odds aren't good.)

Whatever the merits of the passer rating as it is currently calculated, there's one thing going for it: it strongly reflects team success. And this, in turn, suggests that a poised, smart, accurate quarterback is the most precious asset in the league.

Power of Perception

2007-02-05T20:17:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend, ESPN Classic ran a program on the Five Reasons You Can't Blame Scott Norwood for losing Super Bowl XXV.

Buffalo lost that game, 20-19 to the New York Giants, and Scott Norwood was the Bills kicker who missed the game-winning field goal at the end. His name is now part of Super Bowl lore.

But it's funny how the legend grows. Few people at the time blamed Norwood for the loss. He was asked to make a 47-yard field goal on grass, something he'd never done before and at the time it was a less-than-50% shot for even the best kickers. Norwood was an accurate kicker at close range but had the shortest range among all kickers.
To the extent that the game was Norwood's fault, it was because he just wasn't good enough to do what he was asked to do, which is far different from "choking" or folding under pressure.

All of this was known sixteen years ago. The Bills would have been lucky if Norwood made the kick, so much so that he would have deserved MVP honors if he had made it.

So why, now, is the perception that Norwood blew it so prevalent that ESPN puts together a program to debunk this view? Why does something so obviously and demonstrably false become common knowledge?

Perhaps for the same reason that an error in a tied game six of the 1986 World Series is blamed for the Red Sox losing the entire series, or a dropped touchdown pass in the third quarter is blamed for the Cowboys losing Super Bowl XIII. Mistakes and failure make the events even more dramatic.

The worst play in Super Bowl history was John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds with a minute left, giving Tom Brady the ball at the 40 yard-line with a minute left in Super Bowl XXXVIII. That was overshadowed that year, however, by Janet Jackson's boobie.

Today, much of the media is doing a pretty good job blaming the Bears' loss yesterday on their quarterback Rex Grossman, even though the Colt's defense made more experienced quarterbacks look ordinary in this year's play-offs. The perceptions could run Grossman out of Chicago.

If this is the way the sports media can influence people, it's scary what the news media can do, on issues that are actually important.

The Hall of Famers

2007-02-03T12:57:00.000-08:00

Well, three of the nine I thought should get in eventually, got in this year: Irvin, Thomas, Wehrli, along with two veterans picks: Charlie Sanders and Gene Hickerson.

Super Bowl Picks

2007-02-03T05:34:00.000-08:00

My favorite Prince Songs are

- When You Were Mine
- Alphabet Street
- Seven

But I think a really fun half-time show would go like this:

- Let's Go Crazy
- Delirious
- 1999

Also, I'll pick the Colts to win the game, because they appear to be all-around a better team.

Ranking the Super Bowl Teams

2007-01-24T17:54:00.000-08:00

ESPN's Page 2 ranks all 80 Super Bowl teams. They are not ranked against each other - it's unfair to compare 250lb linemen of 30 years ago to the 310lb linemen of today and pronounce who'd beat who. Instead, they're ranked relative to the rest of the league in the year they played. So a 15-1 Super Bowl team will rank ahead of a 9-7 Super Bowl team (and, indeed, the lone 9-7 team is ranked last). Some losers rank ahead of some winners; consider the 1978 Cowboys vs. the 2005 Steelers - which was the better team relative to the competition?

The methodology, such as it is, is explained here. I hope that overall record is favored over record against .500 or better teams - the descriptions make it seem like record against .500 opponents is more impressive than overall record, whereas I say that it reflects better on a team if all of its losses are against winning teams.

I also think that the team's record previous to the Super Bowl year and after the Super Bowl year should count heavily.

It is hard to disagree with the final rankings. The 89 49ers over the 85 Bears? Well, yes - if you consider that the Bears were exposed in that Miami game more than the 49ers were in their two losses.

You have to give the two worst teams, the 79 Rams and 03 Panthers credit, however. They actually showed up for their Super Bowls against dynastic teams, unlike others that suffered blow-out losses. And at least they got there, unlike scores of more talented teams who didn't.

Three of the most dominant teams I've seen, the '84 49ers, the '85 Bears, and '86 Giants, followed each other and neither could go back-to-back. Oftentimes, greatness is a onetime thing. The '91 Redskins were also like that; I recall one Monday Night when qb Mark Rypien had an absolutely horrible game and still beat a very talented Eagles team 23-0.

The '83 Redskins had the best offense I've ever seen (of course, I was a kid and impressionable) - until they were held to 9 in the Super Bowl. The Packers' 48-47 victory over them that year may have been the greatest offensive game ever played. Mark Mosely's late field goal misses prevented that 14-2 Redskin team from being undefeated in the regular season.

Defense is harder to judge, but the '85 Bears were definitely the scariest.

How would this year's Super Bowl participants rank? Part of it depends on the result of the game, but my guess is that the winner will be in the lower echelon of winners - though far from the lowest - and the loser fair pretty resepctably. The Colts will be punished for their #3 seed and one of the worst rushing defenses, whereas the Bears will be docked for their average offense, there slip in defense, and inconsistent quarterback. Though they should get credit for securing the #1 seed early. And Rex Grossman is far more dangerous than most of the other heavily criticized quarterbacks who made the big game.

The notable thing about both the Colts and the Bears is that they piled up victories early, when they were strong and healthy. So when they faced adversity, they could still weather the storm and bounce back in the play-offs.

Interesting Choice

2007-01-23T20:08:00.000-08:00

According to Cowherd, 31 year-old USC assistant coach Lane Kiffin was turned down as head coach of the University of Minnesota Gophers. But Kiffin's good enough, or Al Davis is desperate enough, for the Raiders to hire him as head coach. Nothing against Kiffin; his father Monte has been a great defensive assistant for decades at both the college and pro levels. But this looks like a bottom-of-the-barrell move. How often do college assistants get offered NFL head coaching jobs? How many 31 year-old assistants? How many second choices from the very same school?

It is clear that practically nobody wants to work for Al Davis. Young coaches must know already or are recommended by mentors to avoid him. With the Raiders, the coach is set up to fail - Raider coaches don't even have control over their own coaching staffs. And I'm sure that Kiffin is well aware of this. But another way to look at it is, it's the opportunity of a lifetime.

I hope Kiffin does well. If the Raiders merely improve next year, and again the year after, he'll gain respect around football. If he doesn't make the play-offs, Davis will probably fire him, but nobody will hold that against Kiffin. He'll get another opportunity.

Parcells and the Cowboys

2007-01-22T18:58:00.000-08:00

The best Bill Parcells anecdote was from Phil Simms. Parcells was notoriously hard on players, but one time before a big game, Parcells took Simms aside and said, "Phil, if you don't throw two interceptions today, you're not trying hard enough." That really loosened Simms up, and he went on to have a great game. We can't let fear of mistakes control us. I don't think, however, the Parcells always gave that impression.

As far as the Cowboys vacancy goes with Parcells retiring, I think the biggest obstacle to getting a good coach is owner Jerry Jones. He is too heavily involved in the management of the team, and will acquire players the coach doesn't even want. In that sense, it might be one of the most frustrating jobs in the NFL. Not as bad as the Raiders and working for Al Davis, of course. And there are some other owners who are too hands-off like the Fords in Detroit, who are allowing a once-competitive Lions franchise to have one of the worst decades any pro sports franchise has ever had under GM Matt Millen.

If the president of a company came up through the ranks in the marketing division, he's in no position to micro-manage the engineers; compared to the experts, he has no idea what he's talking about. Similarly, an owner who hadn't been a player, coach, and/or scout himself really has no business making personnel decisions.

It's a shame, because head coach of the Dallas Cowboys should be the #1 job in football.

On the upside, the Cowboys can start fresh. For too long they've been plugging holes with players and coaches who made names for themselves elsewhere, such as Parcells, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Owens. With young Tony Romo at quarterback, perhaps the Cowboys can develop a new face with players and coaches who make names for themselves as Cowboys.

Super Bowl Pick

2007-01-21T20:24:00.000-08:00

The Bears were outstanding today on defense, but I believe the Colts are much better than the Saints. The Colts also proved that they could battle through adversity and against two of the league's top defenses. And besides, they're the AFC team.

If Rex Grossman plays well, I think it will be a great game, but I still pick the Colts.

By the way, that was one great AFC Championship Game. It's games like that that make people tune into the NFL.

College Assistant Job Better Than Raiders Head Coach

2007-01-20T16:58:00.000-08:00

I've heard it said that there isn't man alive who would turn down a head job.

But 32 year-old Steve Sarkisian would rather work as an assistant coach under Pete Carroll at USC than be the head coach for the NFL's Oakland Raiders under general partner/manager Al Davis.

This must be the diplomatic lie of the year:

"I thank them for their interest in me," Sarkisian said in a statement released by the university. "While the job was never offered to me, at this time in my career, I've told them I want to stay at USC. I strongly believe that the Raiders' job is a great opportunity for whomever their next head coach is going to be."

Evidently not. It is apparent nobody wants to work with Al Davis anymore. His track record the past four years is disastrous. It's too bad he can't be fired.

Brady or Manning?

2007-01-19T20:56:00.000-08:00

The two championship games this weekend will feature perhaps the three best quarterbacks in the league - Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning. Brees needs some more All-Pro or Super Bowl years to be mentioned in the same breath as the other two, however.

Colin Cowherd was asked today if, knowing what he knows now, if he had a generic NFL team would he draft Brady or Manning? Cowherd would go with Brady, although he and Mel Kiper agreed that if Manning wins just one Super Bowl, he'd vault ahead of Brady.

Callers argued for one or the other, usually by denigrating the other. I think each quarterback has been blessed/lucky, although their own ability also made their teammates lucky to have played with them.

Peyton Manning has had the following advantages:
a) Offensive continuity - The line-up changes little year by year, and offensive coordinator Tom Moore's been there throughout his career.
b) Exceptionally talented players around him, particularly Marvin Harrison but also Edgerrin James for several years, Reggie Wayne, etc.
c) good head coaches and organization that gets the team into the play-offs.

Chief disadvantage: Shaky defenses that get exposed, particularly vulnerable to run in the play-offs, preventing play-off success. Coaches perceived as doing a poor job in big games. Manning perceived as too predictable and pressing in the play-offs.

Tom Brady has had these advantages:
a) Best game-planning and game-day head coach in Bill Belichek
b) Good defenses that keeps the Patriots alive in tough games, and good special teams that win games.
c) Excellent team ownership and management

Chief disadvantage: a revolving-door offense that prevents stability and rhythm; perception of being a "system" guy who wouldn't succeed nearly as well under other coaches.

So who would you take? It's interesting, because if the question is who I'd take for a whole season it would be Manning, but for one game it would be Brady. I believe Manning is physically capable of making more big and small plays to win more games over the long haul, but Brady has been calmer and played better in big-game situations. When choosing between two basketball players, you'd be inclined to choose the bigger one, even if you'd rather give the ball to the smaller one for the last shot.

And in any case, first things first. You have to get to the play-offs, and then anything can happen. Therefore, I'd take the guy more likely to lead and average, generic team to the play-offs, and that would be Manning.

We might get a better idea five or eight years from now, if both Manning and Brady have to deal with new coaches, new teammates, new schemes, and new management. While Brady deserves a lot of credit, his having won three Super Bowls to Manning's none doesn't prove he's better, that he's the guy to draft. Dan Marino didn't win any Super Bowls, and most consider him a greater quarterback than Troy Aikman.

Cheering for the Overdogs

2007-01-19T08:30:00.000-08:00

Call me crazy, but I'm not usually a fan of the "underdog," particularly in the NFL. (Sure, upsets when the underdog was misjudged are kinda cool, but not when the infereior team is merely lucky or the favorite just plays poorly.) I prefer teams building to greatness as opposed to "instant" greatness. I don't like to see a losing team from last year make it to the Super Bowl.

I don't like to see teams improve their win total by more than five games in a season. New Orleans may be a slight exception. Circumstances, not talent, led to their 3-13 season last year. New coach, acquiring a Pro Bowl quarterback, drafting the Heisman Trophy winner, and a determination to rebuild a city's morale have created a honeymoon for them, and they improved by seven games in the regular season. Still, I'm uncomfortable with going from 3-13 to the Super Bowl. It indicates that the NFL has too little depth. A couple injuries to starters can knock out a team; staying healthy or particularly strong performances from just one or two players can make a loser into a winner.

This isn't to say I want all good teams to stay good and bad teams to stay bad. I love comebacks and cinderella stories - but only to a point. I don't want to see "flash in the pan" Super Bowl teams but rather perennial play-off teams making it to a Super Bowl. I want to see teams go through at least one or two seasons of play-off heartbreak before winning the big game.

More than cheering for the underdog, I like to see greatness be great. I feel under-achievement is more tragic than over-achievement is exhilerating.

All of this to say, I want the Bears to make it to the Super Bowl, and the Patriots, with the Patriots winning. This affirms their greatness. And if not the Patriots, I want the Colts to get there and win it to affirm the greatness of Manning, Harrison, Dungy, etc. If the Bears get back next year, I'd probably want them to win. But I don't think they're good enough yet.

Lay Off Schottenheimer - And Predictions

2007-01-15T14:33:00.000-08:00

The San Diego coaching staff had their team well-prepared and, up by 8 late, in a position to win the game. Different game decisions that may have been mistakes in hindsight were not fatal, mistakes by players on the field - dropped passes, turnovers, penalties - cost the Chargers. My only quibble was not trying to get one quick ten-yard sideline play with 8 seconds left to get his kicker a better chance.

Schottenheimer is 5-13 in the play-offs. Most of the time, but not always, he's lost to superior teams. In any case, the loss yesterday was not his fault, and therefore, he should not be fired.

I thought we saw four very good games this weekend featuring the eight best teams in the league. I was 2-2 in my predictions; perhaps I should have given the Saints more credit, but I thought Philly's character and coaching would carry them through - as it almost did Seattle in their narrow loss to Chicago.

Even though I was 2-2 with it, I'll try making predictions again using Aikman's ratings.

Indianapolis-New England:

Indy Off v. NE Def: 93.58-85.9 Edge: Indy (7.68 points)
Indy Def v. NE Off: 66.4-82.4 Edge: NE (16 points)
Home Edge: Colts
Play-off Coaching Edge: Pats
QB Edge: Pats
Pick: Pats - although Colts' defense will play much better than the ratings say.

Chicago-NewOrleans
Chi Off v. NO Def: 74.2-72.2 Edge: Bears
Chi Def v. NO Offf: 86.5-83.8 Edge: Bears
Home Edge: Bears
Play-off Coaching Edge: Saints
QB Edge: Saints
Pick: Saints - because Bears' ratings edges are slight, and inflated by early blow-outs and not reflective of current situation. Brees, McAllister the difference.

Last notes: quit whining, L.T. And please, Chevy Trucks, bring back "Like A Rock" if you have to, but Mellencamp's "This Is My Country" might be the lamest, boring, songwriting-by-numbers song ever written. Drop it.

Predictions by (Aikman's) Numbers

2007-01-12T18:46:00.000-08:00

I weigh the play-off games based on the team's Aikman Efficiency Ratings and my own subjective assessments of the coaches and quarterbacks. Based on these, and the home field, I am making my predictions for the Divisional Play-offs. I include Home Edge because it has been significant in these games in the past. For coaching and quarterbacks, I put favored those with more experience and/or greater play-off success (though I give Manning the edge over McNair, because of Manning's perennial All-Pro status.)

Baltimore-Indianapolis

Bal Def v. Ind Offense: 93.6-93.58 (tie)
Bal Off v. Ind Defense: 73.9 -66.4 Edge: Bal
Home Edge: Bal
Play-off Coaching Edge: Bal
QB Edge: Ind
My Pick: Bal

San Diego - New England
SD Off v. NE Def: 93.57-85.9 Edge: SD 7.67
SD Def v. NE Off: 74.4 - 82.4 Edge: NE 8
Home Edge: SD
Play-off Coaching Edge: Patriots
QB Edge: Patriots
Pick: Patriots

New Orleans-Philadelphia
NO Off v Phil Def 83.8 -75.4 Edge: Saints (8.4)
NO Def v Phil Off 72.2 -83.3 Edge: Eagles (11.1)
Home Edge: NO
Play-off Coaching Edge: Phil
QB Edge: Phil (slight)
Pick: Eagles

Chicago-Seattle
Chi Off v Sea Def 74.2-72.3 Edge: Bears 1.9
Chi Def v Sea Off 86.5-74.5 Edge: Bears 12.0
Home Edge: Bears
Play-off Coaching Edge: Seattle
QB Edge: Seattle (significant)
Pick: Bears

Deep Down, We All Suspected This

2007-01-11T13:46:00.000-08:00

According to America's finest news source, Bill Parcells has "always hated football."

Hall of Fame

2007-01-10T18:09:00.000-08:00

Major League Baseball and Pro Football select Hall of Fame inductees very differently. Baseball has some 545 selectors, football has 40. The latter has the bad taste of publicizing 17 finalists for 4-7 spots in the Hall of Fame; a player must get 80% of the votes. These players will then be tortured for the following month before the inductees are announced on Super Bowl weekend.

Looking at the list, I'm fairly convinced that at least nine deserve to get in and will get in either this year or eventually:

1. Ray Guy - because he's acknowledged as best punter ever. If he doesn't get in, no punter ever will.
2. Michael Irvin
3. Bruce Matthews
4. Art Monk
5. Paul Tagliabue
6. Derrick Thomas
7. Thurman Thomas
8. Roger Wehrli
9. Gary Zimmerman

BCS Championship Observations

2007-01-08T21:09:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, Urban Meyer went undefeated as coach of Utah, and they weren't even in the national championship debate, let alone the game. Now, his Florida team got to play for the national championship despite a loss, and absolutely throttled Ohio State.

Congratulations, Urban. That was a good career move. Some coaching moves I don't get, like when coaches of good college teams jump to the NFL, but this won I understood.

* * *

Why did Ohio State's marching band play the theme from Titanic in the halftime show?

* * *

I didn't make any predictions, but I wasn't surprised by the Florida victory - the score, maybe, but not the victory. Ohio State didn't seem to me to be jaw-dropping awesome like some college teams of the past, and if you're not jaw-dropping awesome, you're beatable.

Aside from Texas and Michigan, they're schedule wasn't much. They put up 17 on Illinois, demonstrating that it is possible to stop them, and allowed 39 to Michigan, indicating it is possible for a highly-ranked team to score on them. It seems that every year in both the NCAA and NFL a very strong defense will give up thirty or more points a couple of times.

And I usually expect southern schools to do well against northern schools in warm-weather bowl games. Southern schools - from California to Florida - seem to have faster and quicker athletes and don't have to adjust to the climate.

But in any case, Florida was better prepared for the game in every way. Who knows how much better Ohio State would have played if the game was held a month ago. Fifty days is a long time between football games. I suspect the late date of this BCS championship game will be re-examined, as will the early date of the Ohio State - Michigan game.

Aikman and the Top 8

2007-01-07T18:40:00.000-08:00

The final Aikman's Efficiency Ratings were released this past week. I like the philosophy and methodology behind them (described in the link). They better measure the overall effectiveness of offenses and defenses.

But do they matter? Evidence from this year suggests yes. In the combined ratings (offense + defense) list, seven of the top nine teams won their division - and all the division winners are still in the play-offs, all the wildcards being eliminated. Jacksonville at 8-8 ranked fourth, suggesting Jacksonville does have the players (they were 12-4 last year), and Dallas edged out New Orleans to rank eighth. The Jets were the only ten-win team not in the Top Ten (#18) and injury-plagued Seattle at #20 was the only division champ not in the top ten. Of the other play-off teams, Kansaas City was #14 and the Giants #19.

It may sound surprising for play-off teams to be ranked that low, but we must remember that 20 teams finished 8-8 or better, and Seattle was only 9-7. Also, astonishing performances, like 6-10's Minnesota's run defense, could give them several more points than one would otherwise expect, and in any case only ten points separates the #20 team from the #9 team. It should also be noted that the four teams with the worst records had the four bottom slots.

So the Aikman Efficiency Rankings don't tell the whole story, but they tell a lot of the story.

Super Bowl Coaches and Their Quarterbacks

2007-01-06T20:04:00.000-08:00

I thought it would be interesting to look at Super Bowl coaches and their starting quarterbacks. Beside each coach's name is the number of times they appeared in the game, and their quarterbacks. Beside each quarterback's name is their status (J,F/J, F explained below), the number of Super Bowls they appeared in with that coach, and (where applicable) the total number of Super Bowls they played. They jury's out, of course, on the status of some of the quarterbacks currently playing.

Bold indicates Hall of Famers
* indicates previous championships in pre-Super Bowl Era
**indicates still active as head coach or starting quarterback
J = Journeyman; quarterback had just a couple above-average years, if any; rarely seen as a strength of the team, often benched or a back-up. Or, NFL career very brief.
F/J = Generally seen as above-average when starting, maybe a sensational year or two, but also prone to benching and trades
F= Franchise quarterback - unquestioned starter for several years - though it should be noted that some are much better than others.

Vince Lombardi 2 Starr (F)(2)
Hank Stram2 Dawson (F)(2)
John Rauch 1 Lamonica (J/F)(1)
Weeb Ewbank 1* Namath (F)(1)
Don Shula 5 Morrall (F/J) Griese (F) (3) Woodley (J) (1) Marino (F) (1)
Bud Grant 4 Kapp (J) (1) Tarkenton (F)(3)
Don McCafferty 1 Unitas (F)(1*)
Tom Landry 5 Morton (J/F)(1 -2 total)) Staubach (F) (4)
George Allen 1 Kilmer (J/F)(1)
Chuck Noll 4 Bradshaw (F) (4)
John Madden 1 Stabler (F)(1)
Red Miller 1 Morton (J/F)(1 - 2 total)
Tom Flores 2 Plunkett (F/J)(2)
Dick Vermeil 2 Jaworski (F/J)(1) Warner (F/J)(1 -2 total)
Bill Walsh 3 Montana (F)(3 - 4 total)
Forrest Gregg 1 Anderson (F)(1)
Joe Gibbs 4 Theismann (F)(2) Williams(J) (1) Rypien(J) (1)
Mike Ditka 1 McMahon (F/J)(1)
Raymond Barry 1 Eason (J)(1)
Bill Parcells 3** Simms (F) (1) Hostetler(J) (1) Bledsoe (F) (1)
Dan Reeves 4 Elway (F)(3 - 5 total) Chandler (F/J)(1)
Sam Wyche 1 Esiason (F)(1)
George Seifert 2 Montana (F) (1 - 4 total) Young (F) (1)
Marv Levy 4 Kelly (F)(4)
Jimmy Johnson 2 Aikman (F)(2 - 3 Total)
Bobby Ross 1 Humphries (J)(1)
Barry Switzer 1 Aikman (F)(1 - 3 Total)
Bill Cowher 2 O’Donnell (J)(1), Rothleisberger (F) (1**)
Mike Holmgren 3** Favre (F)(2**) Hasselbeck (F)(1**)
Mike Shanahan 2** Elway (F)(2 - 5 total)
Jeff Fisher 1** McNair (F)(1**)
Brian Billick 1** Dilfer (J)
Jim Fassel 1 Collins (J)
Bill Bilichek 3** Brady (F)(3**)
Mike Martz 1 Warner (J/F) (1 - 2 total)
Bill Callahan 1 Gannon (J/F) 1
Jon Gruden 1** Johnson (J/F)(1)
John Fox 1** Delhomme (J/F)(1**)
Andy Reid 1** Donavan McNabb (F) (1**)

It was just interesting to see how the success of some Hall of Fame coaches and quarterbacks are closely tied together.

Of the Hall of Fame coaches, only George Allen didn't go to at least one Super Bowl with a clear "franchise" quarterback, because Billy Kilmer competed with the Sonny Jurgenson for the starting job. Indeed, all of them coached at least one Hall of Fame quarterback in the Super Bowl except Madden and Gibbs.

Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks are usually pretty good, but they don't have to be great. Yet it should be noted that every quarterback who's gone to the Super Bowl at least three times, win or lose, was not only a franchise quarterback but was (or clearly will be) a Hall of Famer.

I'm thinking that 3 conference titles is more or less of a guarantee for getting into the Hall of Fame - regardless of how many Super Bowls are won. After all, before the Super Bowl era the NFL had less than half of the teams they have now. And you can't name a three-time champion coach or quarterback from those days who isn't in the Hall of Fame. So you can expect Dan Reeves, 0-4 in Super Bowls, to get into the Hall of Fame before Tom Flores, who's 2-0. And it is highly probable among Hall of Fame coaches that they got to work with Hall of Fame quarterbacks for at least part of their career, and vice-versa.

Is He Worth It?

2007-01-03T12:00:00.000-08:00

ESPN's Colin Cowherd is critical of Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, saying things like "Yes, he's won 76% of his games, but he should be winning 86%." Maybe he's right. If one's name is never mentioned as a possible candidate for an NFL job, never in the rumor mill for another, higher-paying college job, and never thought of as a coach fans of other schools would like to have, then one is probably not a great coach.

But even if Michigan fans want a better coach, can they risk getting someone worse? Under Carr, Michigan has five Big Ten Championships (including two co-championships), five BCS Bowl bids, six ten-win seasons, and their first national championship in fifty years.

The only way to get someone better is to get a "name" coach with a proven record. This means overpaying him, abandoning the sense of continuity of the program, and diminishing its classy reputation somewhat. Otherwise one is rolling the dice and may get someone worse than Carr. If the program starts getting 7-5, 6-6 records and falls to the middle of the Big Ten pack, I could see letting him go. But right now, Michigan can't afford it.

Here's something to think about. In 1995, the Michigan job fell into Carr's lap after Gary Moeller was fired in the spring. the same year Nick Saban took the job at Michigan St. The young Saban had NFL credentials; Carr was a Michigan lifer. In the five years they recruited against each other in the Big Ten, Saban went 34-28-1; 23-19-1 in the Big Ten. Carr went 49-13; 31-6 in the Big Ten.

Saban is considered a genius because he finally got things going at MSU in his fifth year, going 9-2, same as Carr. But then Saban quit MSU and the program quickly slid back into its proper place.

Yes, Saban faired better at LSU, inheriting Gerry DiNardo's highly-regarded recruits, bringing the program back to prominence and going 48-16 in five years with a national championship. But then he had a disappointing two-year run with the Miami Dolphins.

Is Saban really such a great genius, someone who can really turn around a program quickly? Alabama is betting $36 million (over eight years) that he can. One wonders if anybody is worth that in college football. It's like when A-Rod's originally signed for $25 million a year: yes, he's a great player (and yes, Saban's a good coach), but come on! What are they thinking?

But as Cowherd says, in four years, when NFL head coaching salaries are up to $8 million, Saban will be gone.

Why People Watch Sports

2007-01-01T22:19:00.000-08:00

I didn't see the whole game, but the never-ending ending of the Boise State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl was among the most exciting minutes ever - in both the history of football and the history of telelvision.

People "watch" a lot of television, though perhaps it is more accurate to say they have the television on while doing something else - much like they have the radio on while driving. And the reason so many have a game on is that, when they hear things are getting interesting, they can pause, set down what they're doing, and pay close attention to the game. What transpires on the field of play is usually more dramatic and exciting than what any fictional series, movie, or "reality show" can ever hope to provide.

Congratulations to the Broncos for their 43-42 victory. My guess is that they've definitely sewn up #3 in the final rankings - and if Ohio State blows out Florida, probably a solid #2.

In November, we thought that Rutgers was the college football story of the year. Turned out to be Boise State.

***

I've been impressed with much of what I've seen in the Bowl Games, though admittedly it's not been a lot. Texas Tech's comeback win against Minnesota was very significant. It proved beyond all doubt to Gopher fans and Minnesota's Administration that, while Glen Mason could take the program to a certain level (i.e., out of the bottom of the Big Ten), he isn't the man to take the program to the "next level" - which I would call Wisconsin's level. Getting to Michigan and Ohio State's level on a consistent basis is impossible.

And I wonder if even Wisconsin's level is possible. The Badgers are in Madison, away from the professional sports in Green Bay and Milwaukee. The University of Minnesota, however, is stuck in the Twin Cities, overshadowed by major league teams in the four major sports. Before the Vikings came in 1961, the University's football team actually won Big Ten titles and even national championships from time to time. Since then, it's been less succesful than programs like Purdue, Iowa, and Michigan State. They haven't stumbled onto Big Ten titles like Illinois does once in a while, or had a good run like Northwestern did.

Still, the vacancy might be attractive to an up-and-comer, or someone like Larry Coker to prove himself.

One more New Years Day thought. Is Nebraska back? Its defense certainly is; it played well against highly-ranked competition all year. But the offense, while able to score points against most Big 12 teams, struggled against Top 15-caliber teams. And now their quarterback Zac Taylor, who made Bill Callahan's West Coast Offense "work" most of the time (albeit against mediocre competition), is graduating.

The team needs some victories over highly-ranked opponents if they want respect.

Minnesota will never be Michigan or Ohio State.

Kicking Themselves

2007-01-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

If my count is correct, there were 126 NFL games between teams that finished .500 or better and teams that finished below.500. Not surprisingly, .500+ teams won 96 of those contests and lost 30.

Several of the 8-8 and 9-7 teams were disappointments. I was curious if playing poorly against losing teams had an effect on their season. Just one, two, or three more wins could have made the difference between missing the play-offs and winning a division:

Pittsburgh: 8-8 overall, 3-2 against losing teams.
Bengals: 8-8 overall, 3-2 against losers.
Jacksonville: 8-8, 1-4 against teams with losing records. That means they were a respectable 7-4 against the better teams. Two losses to Houston especially hurt them.
Panthers: 8-8, 4-3 against losers.
Seahawks: 9-7, 3-4 against losing teams. This cost them a first-round bye.
Giants: 8-8; 5-0 against losing teams. Sure, they shouldn't have played so poorly in the second half, but at least they didn't under-achieve against weak teams.
Bronocs: 9-7, 4-0 against losing teams. Their season of regret at least didn't include losses to the likes of Oakland.

The Bears and Jets had the most games against losing teams. The Bears were 8-1 in them, the Jets 7-2.

Green Bay, which went 8-8, went 7-1 against the losers (losing only to 7-9 Buffalo via turnovers), and generally controlled the line of scrimmage against them. The Pack went just 1-7 against .500 or better clubs, and most of those games weren't even close. 8-8 sounds about right for them.

The Ravens (6-0) and Chargers (5-0) were, along with the aformentioned Giants and Broncos, the only teams undefeated against sub-.500 teams. (The Patriots were 6-1 and the Colts were 4-1.)

The best evidence of a great team is beating the teams they should beat, and usually winning against the better teams. No wonder the Chargers are the favorites.

The Real Conference Record

2006-12-29T22:17:00.000-08:00

Hypothetical: one wildcard "bubble" club is in a tough position because of its bad record in a tough division, despite its strong record in inter-divisional play. Another bubble club is in a tough position because, while it has a good record in a weak division, it's pathetic in inter-divisonal play. They never played each other, and overall conference record will determine which gets the wildcard.

Is this fair? Should being good in a bad division translate into being good in the conference? I think one way to control for division disparities in the conference is to judge a team's conference performance not by the twelve conference games (six division - 2 each against three team, six inter-division - one each against six teams) played, but by the nine conference teams (three division, six inter-division) that the team played.

I think the inter-divisional record should play a more significant role in the conference record tie-breaker. I think the inter-division games should be weighted heavier, perhaps two-thirds, in evaluating the conference record, and the division games one-third.

This would apply only to the conference tie-breaker, and not to division standings or overall standings.

So Many Comebacks

2006-12-29T20:40:00.000-08:00

In tonight's Insight Bowl, Texas Tech came back from 31 down to beat Minnesota 44-41 in overtime. This is the biggest comeback ever in a bowl game, breaking the 30-point deficit record set in 2001, which broke the 25-point deficit record set in 2000. Why big comebacks increasingly common? Five reasons:

1. More and more bowl games, leading to
2. More and more average to bad teams getting into Bowl games,
3. Average to bad teams tend to be so because of their defenses,
4. Offenses are better, and the game is more offense-oriented.
5. Overtime - it's only been in existence since 1996. Games like tonight, in which Tech tied the game at the end of regulation on a field goal, would have ended in a tie.

Favre's Thought Process

2006-12-22T21:15:00.000-08:00

I think Brett Favre was torn last spring:

- The Packers were in rebuilding mode. If Favre was to be part of that rebuilding, he should commit to three more years .
- but if the young team totally sucked - not just because they're inexperienced but because they're bad, Brett Favre wouldn't want to commit to more years of losing. He wanted the option of quitting if it was another bad, 4-12 season.
- On the other hand, if the team showed signs of improvement, so as to make play-off/championship runs the following two years, Favre would want to keep playing, for two reasons: a) it would be fun again, and b) it would be unfair to the other players if, just when they started getting good, they had to go through another "rebuilding" year adjusting to a new young quarterback and his inevitable growing pains.

I believe this is was Favre's dilemma last spring. I believe early on this year, and in the mid-season slump, there was reason for Favre to doubt whether he would come back. If he lost confidence in the organization and saw nothing but more years of losing, why should he?

But now with the Packers still in the play-off hunt and at worse a 7-9 team, Favre has an obligation to come back and see this thing through. This was a rebuilding year, and it was a successful rebuilding year. If Favre quits now, he will have set the program back by a year, as the Packers could have installed a young quarterback and grown with him.

So I predict that this week, or immediately following the last game of the year, that Favre will announce that he'll be back.

How Brett Favre is Having a Good Year

2006-12-20T19:56:00.000-08:00

Brett Favre came off his worst year. He leads the league in passing attempts, but at 56% is well below his career completion percentage. 15 INT's is pretty good considering he puts the ball up 37 times per game, but he's barely at six yards per pass, has just 17 touchdowns, and a rating of 74.8 - which is 25th among the top 30 leaders in passing yards.

Plus, the team sucks overall. It got whipped by all the good teams it faced, and lost to some pretty bad teams as well. Ahman Green isn't the same as he was 2000-2003, and the team is just 19th in rushing. Favre has just one consistently reliable receiver, Donald Driver.

So why do I say Favre is having a good year? Through it all, the Packers are still just a game out from the play-offs. Yes, it's a long-shot, but they're in the strongest position of all the 6-8 teams. And while Favre leads the league in passing attempts, the team is sixth in fewest sack yards allowed, and fifth in fewest sacks allowed - even though the team starts three rookie offensive linemen.

The man refuses to be sacked. He's thrown a lot of balls away to prevent the sack. A lot.

That's the sign of a good quarterback.

Some Rankings

2006-12-20T19:52:00.000-08:00

There are twelve play–off teams, six in each conference. Not all positions have been filled, but I am counting as a “play-off team” the teams that would go to the play-offs if they started today, based on the conference standings.

Of the top twelve teams in points per game, ten are play-off teams.

Of the top twelve teams in rushing yards, just five are play-off teams, though all but one are in the play-off hunt.

Of the top twelve teams in rushing attempts, seven are play-off teams, and just one has a losing record.

Of the top twelve teams in passing yards, just six are play-off teams, though all of the top five are.

Of the top twelve teams in passing attempts, just four are play-off teams, and just one of the top five.

Of the top twelve teams in turnover margin, eight are play-off teams are all are technically in the hunt.

Of the top twelve teams in 3^rd down percentage, eight are play-off teams and the rest are at .500 or better and in the hunt.

Of the twelve least-penalized teams, just five are in the play-offs.

Of the five least penalized in yards, just five are in the play-offs.

Of the top twelve in time of possession, seven are in the play-offs.

Of the top twelve teams in first downs, nine are in the play-offs.

Of the top twelve teams in yards/play, seven are in the play-offs and four more in the hunt.

Is Yards Per Pass Play THE Stat?

2006-12-19T20:19:00.000-08:00

Here are some more Week 15 numbers:

The team with the greatest average gain per offensive play went 12-4.
The team with more yards rushing went 11-4-1.
The team with more Yards Per Pass Play (including sacks) went 14-2. On this stat, the Raiders were better than the Rams, but were -5 on turnovers and lost. And the Jags were better than the Titans, but were -4 on turnovers, and allowed three returns for touchdowns.

I'm beginning to suspect that Yards Per Pass Play is THE stat, the best offensive predictor of victory. This would suggest that the most important positions on the offense are the quarterback and the two tackles, who block the pass rushers.

Third Down Efficiency

2006-12-18T16:37:00.000-08:00

(Updated Tuesday, including Monday night's game)

In the Week 15 games the teams with a superior 3rd Down conversion rate went 11-5.

But when considering the total number of unconverted third downs, the team with the fewest went 12-3. Example: the Bears went 5 of 16 on third downs, and the Bucs were a slightly more efficient 6 of 18. But that translated to eleven unconverted third downs for the victorious Bears, and 12 for the losing Bucs.

The most dramatic example of this was the Titans-Jacksonville game. The Titans were a pathetic 0-8 on third downs; the Jags a remarkable 10-19. But the losing Jags had one more unconverted third down.

I'm not suggesting that this was the deciding factor of the game - three turnover returns for touchdowns is what gave the Titans the victory. But one thing leads to another.

The Rams shut out the Raiders despite being worse on third downs in both categories, but had a +5 turnover advantage. Indeed, the six teams that were -2 or worse in turnover margins were all losers, and they averaged just 10.5 points per game.

The team that won the turnover battle went 11-3. The three that lost the turnover battle but won the game were each only -1 in turnovers. Significantly, their third-down conversions were 7-15, 7-15, and 7-14; their opponents were 0-11, 2-12, and 2-13. Blowing too many third downs probably evens the turnovers out. Not to mention the fact that the three winners: the Ravens, Packers, and Jets, were clearly superior to their opponents: Browns, Lions, and Vikings.

The overall lesson? Don't get into third down situations, but if you do, convert them. And don't turn the ball over.

On Field Position

2006-12-16T14:17:00.000-08:00

How important is field position? I looked at week 14. The numbers are rough (they don't add up exactly), but close:

In the 16 NFL games last week, there were 358 drives, leading to

-74 TD's
-42 FG's
-49 turnovers
-15 turover on downs downs
-11 missed FG's
-132 punts

-12 drives ending at halftime
-14 drives ending at the end of the game (I may have miscounted half-ending and game-ending drives).

Of these, 38 drives began across the 50 - that is,in the opponent's territory. Three were game-enders by the winning team. Of the remaining 35:

- 26 ended in scores
- 4 turnovers
- 3 punts
- 1 turnover on downs
- 1 missed FG

Signifcantly, teams that began more drives in their opponent's territory went 12-1. No wonder: teams that begin drives inside their opponent's territory score at a rate of 75%, as opposed to 33% overall.

One interesting statistic is the number of plays that originated at or inside a team's own 20. There were about 117, of which 37 ended in scores. This is close to the overall scoring rate. The 15 turnovers from drives beginning in this territory is also close to the overall turnover rate.

This does not mean, however, that it makes no difference where a drive starts. Teams that found themselves at or inside their own 20 more often than their opponent, won just three games and lost nine. Since most drives end in a punt or turnover, you don't want your drive to stall in the shadow of your own goalposts. That just makes it easier for the other team to score. If you have to punt, better to punt at your 40 instead of your 20.

Although it is worse to begin near one's own end zone, there was one interesting, though not surprising, statistic. The team that scored more points in drives beginning at or inside their own 20 than their opponent did, went 10-4.

This is not surprising. The team that is able to put together a long drive ending in a touchdown, when the opponent is unable to put together a long drive, is obviously executing better that day.

As we learned from week 13, teams that punt more, lose more games. And, the team with more turnovers loses almost all the time. Each time a team has a long drive ending in points, the likelihood of losing the turnover and punt battles are reduced.
A long drive indicates that the running game is clicking. Teams that rush for more yards usually win.
A long drive also indicates that the passing game is efficient. The team with more efficient passing (Yards Per Pass Play) usually wins.
A long drive exhausts and demoralizes the opponent while it gives the team's own defense a longer rest.

Conclusion: Turnovers and field position are the most important factors in an NFLgame, but the team that can overcome bad field position with long, sustained drives ending in points is probably playing better that day and will be the likely winner.

At some point, I will look at more games from more weeks to see if the stats I looked at in weeks 13 and 14 were normal or aberrant

Great Teams Are Good Teams With Great Players

2006-12-14T19:35:00.000-08:00

Michael Lewis's Moneyball answers the question of how the Oakland A's win a lot of games every year despite a low payroll.

But they haven't gone to the World Series.

I think it's because the A's acquire players that give them statistical advantages, particularly against average and below-average teams. Although I don't follow baseball closely, I could theorize why the A's fail in the play-offs.

1. GM Billy Beane frowns on steals and sacrifices, believing that a team built on "small ball" won't go far.The focus is on on-base and slugging. But in the play-offs, where the pitching is superior, the "little things" are the difference betweeen victory and defeat.
2. Because of the A's low payroll, the A's can't afford great players, and great teams are good teams with great players.

Because of revenue sharing and the salary cap, NFL teams don't have the obstacles that teams like the A's face. Many teams over the years have, like the A's, sought to play the percentages. A disciplined, conservative team that doesn't turn the ball over or commit penalties will win a lot of games - and make quick exits in the play-offs. Ask Chuck Knox. But teams can still be conservative on offense and win the Super Bowls, but only if they have an aggressive defense. And a defense can be aggressive only if it has great players.

If you make predictions going into the play-offs, favor teams with great defenses. That doesn't mean favor teams that lead in defensive statistics, but rather teams whose defenses scare the heck out of you. They will likely be defenses that are
a) solid all-around,
b) with great individual players.

If when picking a play-off game, both defenses scare the heck out of you (or if neither defense scares the heck out of you), only then should you look to the offenses. And, again, don't favor the team whose offense leads statistically, but rather the offense that scares the heck out of you.

A "scary" offense doesn't need a lot of pizzazz. It can be quite conservative. Truly, the scariest offense is one that
a) runs the ball well, and
b) is most capable of converting any third down between one and fifteen yards.

In other words, it has a great qb-rb-wr combination.

This advice applies only to the play-offs. Picking games between successful teams on Any Given Sunday in the regular season is more of a roll of the dice.

The Most Valuable Player, the Outstanding Player

2006-12-13T17:21:00.000-08:00

How does one decide on a Most Valuable Player award? I would consider the following factors, in order of importance:

1. The Indispensible Man: based on performace, where would the team be without this player?
2. The Best Man: if you were asked to select a first-place team from scratch, then based on this season's performances only (disregarding age, potential, previous performance, or reputation), who would be the first player you'd pick?
3. The Winner: Was the team in fact successful? Was it successful without the presence of other great players?
4.. Consistency: is he often guilty of bone-headed or sloppy play? Has he cost games?
5. The Playmaker: does he come through in the clutch?
6. Leadership: does his presence improve team morale?
7. The Stat Man: is he a leader in meaningful statistics?
8. Hype: Effect on ticket sales, ratings, etc.

Obviously, factors 3-8 play into the consideration of both 1 and 2. I consider them things to consider in the case of close calls.

Now, for an Outstanding Player award, like the Heisman Trophy, I would reverse factors 1 and 2 in order of importance, but otherwise consider the same criteria in the same order.

This year LaDanian Tomlinson's season was tragically cut short by an off-field accident tomorrow, I'd still probably give him the MVP this year, and an Outstanding Player award if there is one. It wasn't just setting the touchdown record in just 13 games. He comes out on top in nearly all categories, and in consideration of indispensiblity and play-making:

Week 8: Chargers 38, St. Louis 24; Tomlinson with 3 TD's.
Week 9: Chargers 32, Cleveland 25: Tomlinson with 3 TD's.
Week 10: Charger 49, Bengals 41: Tomlinson with 4 TD's.
Week 11: Chargers 35, Broncos 27: Tomlinson with 4 TD's.
In the last two games, the Chargers became the first team to come back from 17 or more points down and win two weeks in a row. And over the course of the four games, the Chargers became the first team to win four straight while giving up 24 or more points in each game.
Week 12: Chargers 21, Raiders 14: Tomlinson with 2 TD plus one TD passing.
Week 13: Chargers 24, Bills 21: Tomlinson with 2 TD's.

And taking away these six games, Tomlinson still has 11 touchdowns in the other games, where the Chargers are 5-2. Tomlinson also has over 1800 yards rushing and receiving. The Chargers are 11-2 with a first-year starter at quarterback. Tomlinson's presence obviously makes Philip Rivers a more effective quarterback, and the team much better, than they otherwise would have been with an average starter.

More On Week 13

2006-12-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

On Games Where the Margin of Victory Was Two Or More Possessions (9+points)

All 8 teams that lost by 2+ possessions had losing records entering the game.

In seven of these games, the losing team had more turnovers (the 8^th was even), and in six the loser had two or more.

In just four of those games did the winner have more total yards.

HOWEVER, in the three games decided by three or more possessions (17+ points), the victor had more yards

In just four of these games did the winner have a longer Time of Possession, but they did in all three three-possession victories. However, only just one (a three-possession winner) have more total plays.

In six (except Houston and Chicago), the winner had a superior Yards Per Pass Play. (5-3 in closer games) Also in six games, the winner had more rushing yards (just 4-4 in closer games)

Some Week 13 Information

2006-12-06T19:52:00.000-08:00

I've been curious about some football stats, and not knowing where to look them up (and not willing to pay for them), I decided to find them out by myself. Curiously, my sources didn't seem to provide the home team, or the time of possession statistic. I'm sure that's available, but I don't have time right now to look it up.

In any case, here are some things I wanted to find out, and the results of week 13 in the National Football League. First, some statistics that are thought to help a team:

- The team that scored first won ten of the sixteen games.
- Twelve times a two-score lead was taken in a game. Nine times, the lead held, whereas three teams came back to win.
- The team with the most first downs won just five games and lost ten.
- The team with the most total yards went 8-8.
- The team with the most rushing yards, however, went 10-6.
- I assumed that most passing yards could easily favor the losing team, who often throw more when trying to come from behind so I didn't count it. Instead, I look for passing efficiency, and the team with more yards per pass play went 11-5.
- The team with the most field goal attempts, which I think suggests superior control of field position, went 8-4.

As to some "bad" stats:

- The team that was sacked more went just 3-8.
- The team that punted more went 3-6.
- The team with the most penalties went 7-8.
- The team with the most penalty yards went 7-9.
- The team that missed more field goals went 4-5.
- Now here's the most telling statistic: the team with the most turnovers went 0-13.

I knew that turnovers were bad, but I didn't think having more turnovers would be worse than getting behind by two scores early. As to the three teams that came back from 10 or 14 points, one was even on turnovers (Titans over Colts), the Falcons had a +2 turnover margin over the Redskins, and the Seahawks were +4 over the Broncos.

0-13 in turnovers may be flukey, but it is clear that turnover margin is the most important statistic in football.

Wake Forest wins the ACC?

2006-12-02T16:21:00.000-08:00

When Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College bolted the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference, it looked like the ACC would get more competitive. That is, Florida State would have to lose the title sometimes to either Miami or Va Tech. A Big Three, Little Nine situation.

Now look what happens. Two years in, and its Wake Forest and Georgia Tech in the championship game, with Wake Forest winning! Apparently, the additional team created parity throughout the conference.

I'm reminded of when Penn St. joined the Big Ten in 1993. It was assumed that they would battle it out with Michigan and Ohio State every year. But within the next ten seasons, Wisconsin and Northwestern each won or shared the Big 10 Title three times, whereas the "Big Three" each went to the Rose Bowl just once (though they may have shared the title in other years), as did Purdue, Illinois and Iowa. Only Minnesota, Michigan St. and Indiana have missed out on a championship over the past 14 years.

Perhaps conference expansion can be good for the "weaker" teams in the conference.

When to throw an interception

2006-11-20T22:00:00.000-08:00

Not all turnovers are equally bad. The time to get picked off is when the interception would work as well or better than a punt.

This means third-and-long between between your own 40 and the opponent's 35 (or whatever is just outside the field goal range of your kicker). If you're near your own 40, go for the longest pass play in your playbook. If you're in your opponent's territory, go for a play where your receiver would catch the ball within the ten yard-line, but not in the end-zone.

The options are:
1. big gain, possible touchdown
2. incomplete pass, punt on fourth down with probable touchback
3. interception inside your opponent's ten.

I'm not saying an interception would be good. I'm just saying that's the best possible time for a high-risk play. It's not a costly one on your in your own territory or at midfield, and it's not a demoralizing as it is when you are in scoring range. It's a case, rather, where your drive has already stalled, and you might as well swing for the fences because you have nothing else to lose.

Ranking the teams

2006-11-20T18:58:00.000-08:00

If I had a vote in a college football poll, these are the criteria I would use to evaluate a team:

1. number of losses
2. caliber of victorious opponents: an 11-1 team that lost to a 1-11 team should be judged more harshly than one that lost to a 10-2 team.
3. margins in defeat(s): getting whipped should be judged more harshly than losing because of a controversial call
4. caliber of defeated opponents
5. margins of victory

More to follow.