E stands for Elite? NFL: Super Bowl Edition

[Kalbear]

Back on topic - time to post some FO links!

DVOA's look at the two teams has New England way, way ahead of the Giants...but only when you look at the whole season or the weighted version of it.If you look at just the last five weeks, they're basically tied.

When they played the Pats looked fairly meh and the Giants looked ascending; that was right before the Giants went on their big slide and the Pats really turned it up.

That all being said, this has been one of the most fucked up seasons for DVOA ever. Matt Forte wasn't in the top 5 of being a running back the day he ran for over 200 yards. The New York Jets were the #1 team in DVOA for a very long time (and still rank ahead of NYG and DET, as examples). I think part of that is that DVOA does not deal with data discontinuities (such as a starting QB getting injured) well in the short term, and not at all in the second order; there's no way to tell that Seattle beat a Philly team starting Vince Young, for instance, so Philly gets hurt even more when they lose to Seattle and Seattle looks great - even though we all know why that happened.

[Mya Stone]

Matt Forte wasn't in the top 5 of being a running back the day he ran for over 200 years.

I'd say they really dropped the ball on not recognizing Forte's time-traveling speed and greatness.

[Kalbear]

Giggle. Okay, fixed.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I'd say they really dropped the ball on not recognizing Forte's time-traveling speed and greatness.

He's like the Egg McMuffin of Methuselahish RBs.

[Sivin]

He's like the Egg McMuffin of Methuselahish RBs.

And according to Jerry Angelo, he's worth as much.

[Jaxom 1974]

I do give credit to the NE DB for the strip, but you have to hold onto/secure the ball. I'm more inclined to blame the reciever than praise the DB in that particular instance.

Matt Bowen over at National Football Post with some game notes:

Sterling Moore’s play vs. Lee Evans: Baltimore’s WR has to make this catch on the Championship stage to punch the Ravens’ ticket to the Super Bowl. We know that. However, don’t let that discount Moore’s ability to get the ball out in the end zone. DB coaches will call this “playing the pocket.” When you are beat (as Moore was), don’t panic at the point of attack. Instead, stick your hand in the pocket, find the ball and get it out. Such a crucial play for a CB that was beat earlier when he missed a tackle in Cover 0 (blitz-man) on Torrey Smith that went for a TD. Bottom line here is simple: Moore finished the play—and Evans didn’t.

[Reny of Storms End]

If the Pats manage to beat the Giants Brady will have proven himself as the best QB of all time without any question, and the Pats dynasty the strongest dynasty ever.

Why? I am not arguing that Tom Brady isn't great, or that his performance might help strengthen the arguement for best ever. But how will a victory prove this is the strongest dynasty ever? The team hasn't won a Super Bowl in seven years.

[Jaxom 1974]

Hey! Because we need a new angle on the drama that can be Jay Cutler!

[Sivin]

I want to make a thumb pun, but I'm on a nostalgia trip with KotoR and can't seem to focus. Someone pinch-pun for me!

[Kalbear]

Why? I am not arguing that Tom Brady isn't great, or that his performance might help strengthen the arguement for best ever. But how will a victory prove this is the strongest dynasty ever? The team hasn't won a Super Bowl in seven years.

In 11 years they will have gone to the superbowl 5 times and won 4 of those 5. No other team has had remotely that level of success since, well, the Steelers in the 70s. What differentiates it from the 49ers is that they did it with one coach and one QB only.

In addition, at that point Brady will have as many rings as any QB ever has, had the most postseason wins of any QB, hold the TD record in a single season, the second most passing yards, one of the highest passer ratings ever and done this with multiple systems.

[Sivin]

In 11 years they will have gone to the superbowl 5 times and won 4 of those 5. No other team has had remotely that level of success since, well, the Steelers in the 70s. What differentiates it from the 49ers is that they did it with one coach and one QB only.

In addition, at that point Brady will have as many rings as any QB ever has, had the most postseason wins of any QB, hold the TD record in a single season, the second most passing yards, one of the highest passer ratings ever and done this with multiple systems.

Kal, I like you. I really do. And I also think that Tom Brady is one of the best to ever play. But seriously man, try not to choke while you're deep-throating him. ;)

[DanteGabriel]

Wow.

[Dinsdale!]

DVOA's look at the two teams has New England way, way ahead of the Giants...but only when you look at the whole season or the weighted version of it.If you look at just the last five weeks, they're basically tied.

I wonder about FO. The guy who runs one of the other major stat sites AdvancedNFLStats has more or less come out and called DVOA bullshit:

As for DVOA, it's a measure of how well teams have played in the past. It's a black box based on tortured formulas designed to correspond with what everyone thinks already anyway. It's constantly chasing the previous year's numbers.

His system's ratings have done much better this season than FO's. It has Houston highly ranked much earlier, and it's been far more positive on the Giants than FO has. (He had them as a 60% favorite in SF!)

I can't really tell you who's right, because I haven't cared enough to figure it out. :) But I just thought it was interesting.

However, I am pretty confident that CHFF is a bunch of BS.

[Jaime L]

From the NFL is a beast file:

Between 10 and 10:30 p.m. Eastern, Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated notes, 69.0 million viewers were watching the Giants-49ers game.

Or basically the total number of votes Obama received on his way to winning the 2008 election. This wasn't even the damn Superbowl.

Just need to create a football based political party and you'll have a lifetime mandate.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I wonder about FO. The guy who runs one of the other major stat sites AdvancedNFLStats has more or less come out and called DVOA bullshit:

His system's ratings have done much better this season than FO's. It has Houston highly ranked much earlier, and it's been far more positive on the Giants than FO has. (He had them as a 60% favorite in SF!)

I can't really tell you who's right, because I haven't cared enough to figure it out. :) But I just thought it was interesting.

However, I am pretty confident that CHFF is a bunch of BS.

The guy at Advanced NFL Stats has a point: DVOA is somewhat of a black box with too many factors going to produce one "clean number." That said, his beef with FO is pretty irrational. For the most part, they come to same conclusions on stuff like fourth down attempts, fumble luck, pass v run etc.

[Reny of Storms End]

In 11 years they will have gone to the superbowl 5 times and won 4 of those 5. No other team has had remotely that level of success since, well, the Steelers in the 70s. What differentiates it from the 49ers is that they did it with one coach and one QB only.

In addition, at that point Brady will have as many rings as any QB ever has, had the most postseason wins of any QB, hold the TD record in a single season, the second most passing yards, one of the highest passer ratings ever and done this with multiple systems.

My argument was more on your point that the Patriots would have the strongest dynasty ever. They certainly would place themselves into the argument (with the Steelers and 49ers), but four victories in eleven years is hardly a slam dunk for strongest dynasty ever.

[Kalbear]

I wonder about FO. The guy who runs one of the other major stat sites AdvancedNFLStats has more or less come out and called DVOA bullshit:

Yeah, this is one of the things I have a big problem with DVOA - it's based essentially on the notion of certain things being a success and failure, and it gets this value entirely from what was successful between a certain period - in this case, 2002-2007. It also is a per-play based metric, which means you can get screwy results like having 7 3 and outs and 2 10+ play drives and end up being a really good offense.

I am liking more and more what FEI is doing as far as measuring value - it does it entirely on drive-based stats, not per-play. It doesn't measure things like QB value as well, but it doesn't matter when judging a team. I think that something like that combined with a DVOA-like stat would be good, though honestly the most important thing about DVOA is the D part - opponennt adjustments are the real value of FO's stats, not the arcane way they judge them.

Kal, I like you. I really do. And I also think that Tom Brady is one of the best to ever play. But seriously man, try not to choke while you're deep-throating him.

Yep, that's what I'm known around here for - my unquestionable love of all things Patriot, Brady and Bellichick. Am I right, guys? That's what people say - how insane I am about the Pats. How great they are, how wonderful and dreamy Brady is.

I personally think that Manning is a QB like no other that has played the game, but it's hard to measure that. I think he's better than Brady - but again, hard to measure. Brady has him trumped on individual success, on winning, on gaudy stats, on superbowl rings (as hugely flawed a metric as that is). Brady's legacy is certainly better. But I can honestly say that I'd much rather have Manning in his prime compared to Brady in his prime, and I think the cesspool of meh talent in Indy points out how amazing he really was.

[Lord O' Bones]

Yep, that's what I'm known around here for - my unquestionable love of all things Patriot, Brady and Bellichick. Am I right, guys? That's what people say - how insane I am about the Pats. How great they are, how wonderful and dreamy Brady is.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

(Sivin; STFU on this one, man)

[Kalbear]

My argument was more on your point that the Patriots would have the strongest dynasty ever. They certainly would place themselves into the argument (with the Steelers and 49ers), but four victories in eleven years is hardly a slam dunk for strongest dynasty ever.

It's a fair concession. The Steelers did it with a couple different QBs. The 49ers a couple QBs and a couple coaches. Neither had the single QB and single coach for such a long period of time, having success over multiple years. I do admit that the Patriot dynasty notion took a very huge hit from 2008-2010, given zero playoff wins. This year could very well balance that out. Plus, the Steelers of old were not the same kind of team that you can make now; they would have been in a stupid amount of salary cap hell. The entire team was loaded. You can't make that kind of disparity today, making the Pats (and to a lesser extent the 49ers) dynasties that much more impressive.

[Kalbear]

Also, on an unrelated note: did Giants target Williams for big hits specifically because of concussion history? According to the Giants players, the answer is:

yes

.

Not sure how to think about that; that's some old-school medieval football playing right there. That's what they used to do to players all the time. Show weakness, go after it. At the same time, now that we know what we know about concussions this seems a bit like wanting to cause potentially fatal injuries to a player in the name of advantage.