DVOA Analysis

Week 12 DVOA Ratings

Photo: USA Today Sports Images

Week 12 was a week of big wins and big losses and therefore had a big impact on the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings. However, the team with the biggest win of all moves up in the ratings but not in the rankings ... depending on which rankings you are looking at.

Last week in this column, I ran a list of the best and worst games of the year so far by DVOA. I may have run that list a week too early. Five teams had a single-game DVOA below -80% in Week 12, led by the Oakland Raiders having the worst game of the year at -123.9% (covered here in Any Given Sunday). No other week this year had more than three such teams. And four teams had a single-game DVOA above 80% in Week 12, led by the Baltimore Ravens having the best game of the year at 122.5% and the San Francisco 49ers having the second-best game of the year at 111.6%. No other week this year had more than two such teams.

I'm sure many readers are wondering where the Baltimore game falls among the top single-game DVOA ratings of all-time, and the answer is that it doesn't. It doesn't make the list of the all-time 30 best games by DVOA, which is led by Washington's 45-0 blowout of Detroit in Week 1 of 1991 (149.6% DVOA). But the Ravens' 45-6 win over the Rams is easily the best game of this year and continues a phenomenal run by Baltimore since Week 7. In their last five games, the Ravens have an average DVOA of 75.4%. Here's how good that is: only seven other teams this season have had a single game as good as what Baltimore has done over a five-game span. Baltimore moves past Dallas into the top spot in offensive DVOA this week, and the Ravens also move up from tenth to fourth in defensive DVOA. Combine that with their rank in special teams (second) and the Ravens are now in the top four in all three phases of the game. New Orleans is the only other team in the top ten for all three phases.

Baltimore's dominating performance is enough to raise them from second in the overall DVOA ratings all the way to second in the overall DVOA ratings. That's because the New England Patriots also saw their DVOA go up this week. They had a 35.3% DVOA for the close win over Dallas, but also get bumped up because of opponent adjustments changing, with huge Week 12 games for past New England opponents including the Jets, the Bills, and ironically the Ravens themselves. As noted above, San Francisco had the second-best game of the year in their 37-8 dismantling of the Green Bay Packers, so their DVOA shoots way up as well and they move back up from fifth to third in DVOA. All three of our top teams moved up substantially this week.

  • No. 1 New England went from 38.4% to 42.5%.
  • No. 2 Baltimore went from 33.7% to 41.3%.
  • No. 3 San Francisco went from 25.9% to 34.3%.

There is a place where the Ravens are ahead of the Patriots, and that's in weighted DVOA, which lowers the strength of early-season games. Right now, that mostly means lowering the strength of Weeks 1-4, which happens to include three of New England's best games of the year as well as Baltimore's two losses. So the Ravens are now No. 1 in weighted DVOA at 44.0%, and the Patriots are second at 41.4%.

I'll admit that I'm surprised that the Ravens haven't passed the Patriots overall in DVOA, given how good they've been over the last five games. I know some other advanced metrics on the Web, from PFR's Simple Rating System to EPA-based metrics such as ESPN's FPI, have the Ravens ahead of the Patriots. To figure out what quirks of our system keep the Patriots ahead, I would need do a lot of play-by-play breakdown of DVOA compared to Expected Points Added. I'm not too worried about our numbers being off since we have the two teams very close together. Our playoff odds simulation also still has the Patriots slightly ahead of the Ravens as Super Bowl favorites, where other systems are now favoring the Ravens slightly. The main reason for that is New England's one-game lead for home-field advantage. Our simulations have both teams likely to finish 4-1, which would leave Baltimore still one game behind the Patriots for the No. 1 seed. Because Baltimore is now ahead of New England in weighted DVOA, however, our simulation would have the Ravens as the favorite on a neutral field. Either the Patriots or the Ravens now win the Super Bowl in over 50% of our simulations. Add in Kansas City and a couple of other minor contenders, and the AFC champion takes home the Lombardi Trophy in roughly 59% of our simulations.

New England's rise in overall DVOA moves the Patriots back onto our list of the best teams in DVOA history, but you'll now find the Ravens on that list too. 2019 is the second year with two teams among the top dozen teams ever tracked through 11 games. (2004 is the other.) Fans of the 1985 Bears will also enjoy this first hint of where that legendary team might finish overall in terms of all-time greatness.

THROUGH 11 GAMES, 1985-2019
Year Team W-L DVOA
2007 NE 11-0 71.9%
1991 WAS 11-0 59.7%
1985 CHI 11-0 58.1%
1998 DEN 11-0 48.6%
2004 PIT 10-1 43.4%
1987* SF 9-2 43.3%
2019 NE 10-1 42.5%
2018 KC 9-2 42.4%
2003 KC 10-1 42.1%
2002 TB 9-2 42.0%
2004 NE 10-1 41.7%
2019 BAL 9-2 41.3%
*Does not include strike games

We've also been tracking where the Patriots and the 49ers rank among the best defenses in DVOA history. As I've noted in the past, there are no specific adjustments for driving rainstorms and blizzards, so the Patriots do get a little natural help this week in moving up to No. 3 on a list of the best defenses ever tracked through 11 games. Of course, the 49ers got some of that help too, in their Week 7 9-0 shutout of Washington. I'm sure a couple of these other great defenses also had a game or two with weather that bad; feel free to share your memories in the comments.

THROUGH 11 GAMES, 1985-2019
Year Team W-L DVOA
2002 TB 9-2 -42.8%
1991 PHI 6-5 -35.5%
2019 NE 10-1 -35.4%
1991 NO 9-2 -35.3%
1985 CHI 11-0 -34.0%
2012 CHI 8-3 -33.8%
1986 CHI 9-2 -29.7%
2008 BAL 7-4 -28.9%
2019 SF 10-1 -28.8%
1997 SF 10-1 -28.8%
2004 BAL 7-4 -28.4%
2005 CHI 8-3 -27.0%

Baltimore and San Francisco weren't the only teams to see their DVOA ratings change significantly after Week 12. Lower down in the rankings, where teams are grouped closer together, there are some pretty significant rises and falls after the big wins and losses of Week 12.

The big jumps are right outside the top ten. For a long time this year, the NFC has dominated the AFC in our ratings except for the exceptions of New England, Kansas City, and recently Baltimore. But some of the AFC wild-card contenders look a lot better after their big Week 12 victories. We still have seven NFC teams in our top ten, but the next four teams after that are AFC teams, and three of those teams went way up this week.

Cleveland moved from No. 20 to No. 11. What's interesting here is that Cleveland's overall DVOA promises a team that is more than the sum of its parts: Cleveland's overall ranking is higher than its ranking on offense (18), defense (13), or special teams (15). Cleveland ranks higher in DVOA than you might expect because the Browns have played the third-hardest schedule in the league so far, trailing just Cincinnati and Green Bay. The Browns have the No. 26 remaining schedule, although three of the five games are on the road. Still, that easier schedule has the Browns right in the thick of the race for the second AFC wild card despite being a game behind all the 6-5 teams.

Tennessee moved from No. 23 to No. 12, and now stands at 0.0% DVOA. OK, that's zero after rounding; the Titans are actually at -0.049% DVOA. Since they are 12th right now, this means that only 11 teams in the league have a positive DVOA rating! New England, Baltimore, and San Francisco certainly make the 2019 season top-heavy. Tennessee has improved dramatically since benching Marcus Mariota after Week 6. In the first six games of the season, Tennessee had -17.8% offensive DVOA, ranked 29th in the league. Since Week 7, Tennessee has 28.3% offensive DVOA, second in the league behind Baltimore. In fact, believe it or not, it was Tennessee (78.5%) and not Baltimore (61.3%) that had the highest offensive single-game DVOA in Week 12! Unlike Baltimore's stellar play on both sides of the ball, the Titans defense has gotten slightly worse over the last five games, going from -2.2% through Week 6 to 4.0% since Week 7.

Buffalo moved from No. 25 to No. 14. Really, the Bills are essentially tied with the Indianapolis Colts at Week 13, as both teams' ratings round to -0.9%. Buffalo, of course, has played the easiest schedule in the NFL so far this season, and the Bills are ninth in the unadjusted rating that doesn't account for schedule or making all fumbles equal. Still, Buffalo played its best single game of the year in a 20-3 win over Denver this week. The Bills are very one-sided on both sides of the ball: their run offense is ranked much higher than their pass offense, but their pass defense is much better than their run defense. Buffalo's two-game lead in the wild-card race gives them over an 80% chance of making the playoffs right now even though they play the hardest schedule by average DVOA of opponent over the final five games. They get to play both Baltimore and New England.

If teams are moving way up, the teams they beat must be moving way down, and a couple of teams really see their DVOA ratings plummet this week. That starts with another team involved in that tight AFC wild-card race, the Oakland Raiders. As noted above, the Raiders had the worst single game of the year, and they drop from 11th to 24th in overall DVOA, declining by about six percentage points on both offense and defense. Other big fallers this week include Chicago (from 15th to 20th), Jacksonville (from 16th to 23rd), and Denver (from 18th to 25th). Green Bay also plummets from 15.1% DVOA to 5.4%, although that only means a drop of one spot in the rankings from ninth to 10th.

One other team that had a very bad game this week was Miami, although the Dolphins can't drop down the rankings when they were already in last place. This week's Dolphins performance (-83.6%) was the worst since Josh Rosen was starting back in the early part of the season. With that in mind, let's update Miami's place on our list of the worst teams in DVOA history through 11 games:

THROUGH 11 GAMES, 1985-2019
Year Team W-L DVOA
2008 STL 2-9 -59.2%
2005 SF 2-9 -57.6%
2009 DET 2-9 -52.2%
2013 JAX 2-9 -51.4%
2008 DET 0-11 -49.7%
2019 MIA 2-9 -47.9%
1999 CLE 2-9 -45.4%
2004 SF 1-10 -44.4%
2011 IND 0-11 -44.2%
2000 CIN 2-9 -44.1%
1987* ATL 2-9 -42.9%
2007 STL 2-9 -42.7%
*Does not include strike games

Miami's poor performance against Cleveland also moved them up on the list of the worst defenses we've ever measured. Horrible defenses aren't quite as memorable as horrible total teams, so you may not remember these teams or that they were this bad at preventing opposing offense. If Miami ends up near the top of this list, maybe we'll do an article reviewing some interesting numbers from the worst defenses ever.

THROUGH 11 GAMES, 1985-2019
Year Team W-L DVOA
2004 STL 5-6 27.5%
2015 NO 4-7 26.3%
2005 HOU 1-10 26.3%
2019 MIA 2-9 25.2%
2013 SD 5-6 25.1%
2000 SF 3-8 24.9%
1992 ATL 4-7 24.8%
1999 CLE 2-9 23.4%
2001 ARI 5-6 23.2%
2008 DET 0-11 23.2%
1987* MIA 7-4 23.0%
2002 KC 5-6 22.8%
*Does not include strike games

* * * * *

Stats pages should now be updated through Week 12, including playoff odds, the FO Premium DVOA database and snap counts.

Since it's the last Tuesday of the month, this is usually when we would be announcing the Football Outsiders stars for Madden NFL 20, but that's getting postponed a week until next Tuesday. Those players will then be available in the game starting on Sunday, December 8.

* * * * *

These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through 12 weeks of 2019, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)





1 NE 42.5% 1 41.4% 2 10-1 6.0% 10 -35.4% 1 1.0% 13
2 BAL 41.3% 2 44.0% 1 9-2 29.0% 1 -9.1% 4 3.2% 2
3 SF 34.3% 5 33.8% 3 10-1 4.2% 11 -28.8% 2 1.2% 10
4 KC 27.3% 3 26.7% 4 7-4 23.8% 3 -1.8% 14 1.7% 7
5 DAL 23.0% 4 22.4% 6 6-5 28.2% 2 1.3% 19 -4.0% 32
6 NO 20.7% 6 22.6% 5 9-2 12.9% 6 -5.5% 8 2.2% 4
7 MIN 17.8% 7 19.2% 7 8-3 13.6% 5 -4.5% 10 -0.3% 18
8 SEA 17.8% 8 18.5% 8 9-2 19.9% 4 -0.1% 16 -2.2% 27
9 PHI 8.6% 10 9.5% 9 5-6 2.3% 14 -7.0% 7 -0.7% 20
10 GB 5.4% 9 4.0% 10 8-3 11.9% 7 6.1% 22 -0.4% 19
11 CLE 2.0% 20 1.0% 12 5-6 -0.7% 18 -1.9% 13 0.8% 15
12 TEN 0.0% 23 0.6% 13 6-5 2.7% 13 1.0% 18 -1.8% 24
13 IND -0.9% 14 1.2% 11 6-5 -0.3% 17 -0.9% 15 -1.4% 23
14 BUF -0.9% 25 0.4% 14 8-3 -4.1% 21 -5.4% 9 -2.2% 26
15 LAR -2.2% 12 -3.6% 16 6-5 -6.7% 22 -4.0% 11 0.5% 16
16 PIT -3.9% 21 -3.9% 17 6-5 -19.1% 28 -13.9% 3 1.3% 9
17 DET -4.5% 13 -6.5% 19 3-7-1 1.0% 16 7.4% 24 1.9% 6
18 HOU -5.0% 17 -5.8% 18 7-4 1.3% 15 7.9% 26 1.6% 8
19 ARI -5.4% 22 -2.9% 15 3-7-1 7.9% 8 10.9% 29 -2.4% 28
20 CHI -5.5% 15 -7.8% 22 5-6 -14.8% 27 -8.2% 6 1.2% 11
21 TB -6.6% 26 -7.2% 20 4-7 -7.4% 23 0.3% 17 1.1% 12
22 LAC -7.1% 19 -7.6% 21 4-7 3.1% 12 7.5% 25 -2.8% 30
23 JAX -7.9% 16 -9.8% 23 4-7 -1.6% 19 7.2% 23 0.8% 14
24 OAK -9.9% 11 -10.0% 24 6-5 6.5% 9 15.5% 31 -0.9% 21
25 DEN -11.8% 18 -11.1% 26 3-8 -12.5% 26 -3.8% 12 -3.1% 31
26 NYJ -11.9% 28 -10.6% 25 4-7 -23.3% 30 -8.4% 5 3.0% 3
27 CAR -13.9% 27 -16.6% 28 5-6 -9.5% 24 2.3% 20 -2.0% 25
28 ATL -14.4% 24 -15.1% 27 3-8 -3.2% 20 8.9% 28 -2.4% 29
29 NYG -21.6% 29 -22.8% 29 2-9 -12.4% 25 8.3% 27 -1.0% 22
30 WAS -31.8% 31 -32.8% 30 2-9 -29.3% 32 4.6% 21 2.1% 5
31 CIN -34.2% 30 -33.2% 31 0-11 -24.4% 31 14.9% 30 5.0% 1
32 MIA -47.9% 32 -44.3% 32 2-9 -23.2% 29 25.2% 32 0.5% 17
1 NE 42.5% 10-1 44.6% 10.0 1 -5.0% 28 -12.2% 31 8.4% 9
2 BAL 41.3% 9-2 45.9% 8.4 4 -4.0% 26 3.9% 9 20.4% 28
3 SF 34.3% 10-1 39.3% 8.8 2 -7.1% 30 12.6% 4 20.2% 26
4 KC 27.3% 7-4 25.1% 8.0 6 1.6% 15 1.6% 12 8.7% 12
5 DAL 23.0% 6-5 28.3% 8.6 3 -4.0% 27 -6.4% 24 6.2% 2
6 NO 20.7% 9-2 26.9% 7.4 8 -2.5% 20 1.0% 14 11.3% 15
7 MIN 17.8% 8-3 19.9% 8.1 5 -3.2% 23 1.2% 13 7.0% 5
8 SEA 17.8% 9-2 15.0% 7.7 7 3.6% 6 6.1% 5 6.2% 3
9 PHI 8.6% 5-6 1.7% 6.7 9 3.4% 8 -20.0% 32 19.7% 24
10 GB 5.4% 8-3 -1.3% 6.5 10 5.3% 2 -9.1% 28 22.4% 29
11 CLE 2.0% 5-6 -1.0% 5.5 13 5.2% 3 -7.3% 26 19.6% 23
12 TEN 0.0% 6-5 11.3% 5.6 11 -3.9% 25 0.0% 18 22.7% 30
13 IND -0.9% 6-5 4.1% 5.5 14 -7.8% 31 -1.6% 20 8.6% 10
14 BUF -0.9% 8-3 13.6% 5.2 16 -14.0% 32 18.2% 1 7.1% 6
15 LAR -2.2% 6-5 -1.1% 5.6 12 3.4% 9 12.8% 3 20.0% 25
16 PIT -3.9% 6-5 -1.1% 5.1 17 1.0% 17 5.0% 7 7.4% 7
17 DET -4.5% 3-7-1 -4.4% 5.0 18 0.1% 18 -0.1% 19 5.7% 1
18 HOU -5.0% 7-4 -2.8% 5.0 19 2.4% 12 4.8% 8 11.9% 18
19 ARI -5.4% 3-7-1 -12.0% 5.0 21 4.8% 4 2.3% 11 11.4% 17
20 CHI -5.5% 5-6 -4.3% 4.9 22 -3.3% 24 13.8% 2 9.0% 13
21 TB -6.6% 4-7 -5.2% 4.1 26 2.0% 13 -6.5% 25 6.2% 4
22 LAC -7.1% 4-7 -2.7% 3.9 28 -5.2% 29 3.1% 10 8.0% 8
23 JAX -7.9% 4-7 -9.8% 4.9 23 -3.2% 22 -7.8% 27 13.6% 19
24 OAK -9.9% 6-5 -7.4% 5.5 15 -2.8% 21 0.1% 17 24.9% 31
25 DEN -11.8% 3-8 -10.1% 4.6 24 1.8% 14 0.1% 16 14.5% 20
26 NYJ -11.9% 4-7 -12.2% 5.0 20 -0.2% 19 -9.1% 29 28.4% 32
27 CAR -13.9% 5-6 -16.4% 4.1 27 1.1% 16 -1.7% 21 20.3% 27
28 ATL -14.4% 3-8 -15.4% 4.1 25 2.8% 11 5.3% 6 19.4% 22
29 NYG -21.6% 2-9 -27.5% 1.5 31 3.6% 7 -11.4% 30 8.6% 11
30 WAS -31.8% 2-9 -33.0% 1.8 30 3.1% 10 0.3% 15 19.3% 21
31 CIN -34.2% 0-11 -43.2% 1.9 29 9.1% 1 -2.7% 22 10.9% 14
32 MIA -47.9% 2-9 -52.1% 0.0 32 4.7% 5 -3.3% 23 11.4% 16


82 comments, Last at 30 Nov 2019, 2:01am

1 Cowboys sure don't seem like…

Cowboys sure don't seem like the league's 5th best team. Maybe that's extreme recency bias, or maybe it's "the coach is a puppet for a dope" bias, or maybe another suspected case of opponent adjustments not fully capturing context, but my eyes are violently disagreeing with play by play efficiency. Who am I to believe, DVOA, or my own lyin' eyes?

2 I would like it if this was…

I would like it if this was addressed one week, since it's been a theme all season. The Cowboys might be the point upon which DVOA is least in tune with conventional wisdom and the eye test. If not the Cowboys, then their NFC East fellows the Eagles, who DVOA has ranked 9th in the league. The NFC East having two of the top nine teams in the league is hard to comprehend.

5 Also they are 0-4 in games…

Also they are 0-4 in games decided by 4 points and have lost by 2 points twice.


There's got to be some bad luck in there where a missed field goal or made field goal at a random point in the game would put them at 8-3 instead of 6-5

8 Looking back at those losses

In their 2 point loss to the Jets, the Cowboys missed a 40 yard FG with 14 minutes left in the 4th and then missed an two point attempt with 43 seconds left.


In their 4 point loss to the Vikings, Maher missed a FG on their opening drive (though it was a 57 yarder), then with time winding down they turned a 3rd and 2 into a 4th and 5 with a tackle for a loss and couldn't convert the 4th and 5. Then they stopped the Vikings but just didn't have enough time left to go down the field in the 2-3 plays they had time for and had to hail mary it eventually.


And then in their 4 point loss to the Patriots Maher missed a field goal, they had a blocked punt that gave the Patriots the ball at the Cowboys 10 (which lead to a TD), and then of course those tripping penalties called on them at the end of the game which the NFL ended up saying were bogus.

I won't say the Cowboys have been solely unlucky, but they've had some things not swing their way that turn a small win into a small loss.


16 In the Patriots game Dallas…

In the Patriots game Dallas also recovered four fumbles, benefited from two missed kicks and got away with at least one uncalled DPI that was no less harmful to NE's drive than the trips were to theirs.

Small things swinging a close loss is kind of a tautology, but I'm not sure it's apt to say Dallas was more unlucky than the Patriots that game.  I can't speak about the other games, so it could be true of them.

23 Yeah I was only applying it…

Yeah I was only applying it as a general statement, as you'd imagine a good team (at least one so favored by DVOA) would be 0-4 in close games. 

It obviously IS possible (the 2019 Cowboys) but I'm not sure it should be expected, and could explain the discrepancy between DVOA rank and actual record

6 Cowboys are actually 4th in…

Cowboys are actually 4th in the league in point difference. My read is that they're a first rate team that's gotten burned by bad breaks in close games (I believe they are 1-5 in games that have been within a score in the 4th Q) and some poor, high leverage coaching decisions. I think DVOA has them pegged about right.

I've watched every game they played minus the second half of the Giants game in New Jersey, for what that's worth.

10 That does explain a lot, but…

That does explain a lot, but they are still a team who have accrued wins almost entirely by beating up terrible teams. The Giants twice, Miami, the Redskins, and the Lions minus Stafford account for five of their six wins. They should have another win over a bad team but managed to lose to the Jets. When I look over their schedule the only impressive result I see is a blowout of the Eagles. I guess those close losses to good teams must be counting for a lot in DVOA.

47 beating up teams

Beating up teams (good or bad) has more predictive value than wins/losses in tight games (in general). It's possible that Garrett is so bad or brainlocks so hard that he's an exception to this, so maybe you can rely on them to almost always lose the close game, but DVOA values stomping people out more than barely edging good teams out, because as demonstrated by the post a few above me, luck plays into close games quite a bit, while stomping people out somewhat frequently is really hard to luck into. 

17 Yeah, and DAL is also 4th in…

Yeah, and DAL is also 4th in SRS, which is point difference adjusted for strength of schedule.

The top 3 have a huge lead on everyone else in both of those metrics. (4th is roughly midway in between 3rd and average.)

51 The top three have a huge…

The top three have a huge lead in SRS, but they certainly don't in DVOA. Here the difference between 3rd and 4th place is the same as the difference between 4th and 5th, while by SRS the difference between 3rd and 4th is larger than the difference between 4th and 21st. 4th and 8th place would need to be clustered between 11% and 14% in DVOA for them to be similar.

28 Dallas DVOA

I don't think Aaron has spent one full sentence on the Cowboys this year, so don't hold your breath for an explanation.

I think they often start with poor field position due to their overrated (by conventional measures) defense and shoddy special teams. Yet the offensive consistently moves the ball into opposing territory—eventually succumbing to mistakes, whether of the play calling/coaching variety or, not infrequently, penalties.

People bring up Dallas's lost to the Jets, which is a bad loss, but if not for an OPI in which the defender initiated contact that wiped a TD off the board, Dallas wins that game.

The Saints loss was terribly officiated, with big errors affecting both sides, but those bad calls were really terrible breaks for Dallas, and you don't have to take my word for it, you can go back and read the FO Any Given Sunday breakdown of that game.

The NE tripping penalty and the questionable Tyron Smith holding call (especially in light of how similar "holding" in that game had been not called) all took away first downs, and the tripping calls were so bad the NFL admitted they were mistakes. That aside, you had typical Garrett coaching issues that limit the teams chance at success, and the cold November rain & wind where it's just a historical fact that Dallas is affected by poor weather, always have been regardless of QB (PFR did a breakdown of this at some point mid-Romo career). I understand DVOA doesn't account for weather, but I think that affects the eyeball test, and DVOA won't penalize Dallas as much for it because NE happens to also be an all-time DVOA defense.

I'd grant you that the Dallas ranking is probably a bit high, but for the amount of comments the past few weeks questioning the Dallas ranking like it's so far off, that seems overblown because of W/L record and not taking into account how well their offense generally has moved the ball, overpaid RB and all.


29 What seems weird to me is…

What seems weird to me is that their variance is so low. They don't seem like a consistent team.

That said, somehow Detroit is #1 in variance, which suggests to me the variance model is completely broken. Paid players don't lose to Washington without either high variance or a broken model.

32 I think DVOA's right and…

I think DVOA's right and Dallas' win-loss record is wrong … or at least improbable.  Through a mix of bad luck and poor coaching, they're at 6-5 when 8-3 or at least 7-4 would be more reasonable.

From what I've seen, I don't think there's a lot of difference between Dallas, Seattle, and Minnesota in terms of win probability if they were to face off against each other.  I suspect New Orleans is better than DVOA rates them … or more accurately, I expect that New Orleans' ceiling is higher than their current DVOA.  I feel the same about Green Bay, whose potential I believe is closer to Dallas, Seattle, and Minnesota, even if the variability of their performances has dragged down their current DVOA.  Philadelphia's had such a revolving roster I have no idea who they'll be if they get to the playoffs. 

80 Cowboys are definitely better than there record

Thier offe se is really good and I'm suprised that everyone is ripping them for playing in such poor conditions this past week.


Are there weather adjustments for dvoa?

It's hard to give the Patriots much credit for the win when the cowboys offense was slowed down by the elements. 


81 Cowboys are definitely better than there record



Are there weather adjustments for dvoa?



4 Random question...

How does the weekly DVOA for a unit (let's use New England's offense for this example) get converted to a season-long DVOA?

For instance, if you sum up the offensive weekly DVOA for the Patriots though week 12 (per the Premium Access DVOA Database) it comes out to +64.8%

This is obviously not the way it is done to arrive at the season total offensive DVOA but I'm just curious how that season number is calculated based off the weekly numbers.

If this is proprietary then I understand

9 Single-game ratings add up…

Single-game ratings add up every play in that game. Season-long DVOA numbers just add up every play for the entire season. So it's not as simple as just adding up the single-game ratings, because there are a different number of plays in each game (and a different amount of "available success" in the baseline when we divide "success points over average" by "available average success baseline").

I hope that helps.

11 Random musings on my way…

Random musings on my way home. I was wondering what not winning the MVP will do to Russell Wilson's legacy, assuming he doesn't win at this year or subsequent years.

I think Wilson right now is a borderline Hall of Fame case, and probably will be a shoe-in once he's done. But I think winning an MVP carries a lot of hidden credibility.

In a vacuum, he belongs in the tier just below the all-time greats, somewhere in that class with Ben roethlisberger and Philip Rivers. I'm just curious how differently he'd be viewed with an MVP and without, because I think Lamar Jackson is probably going to win it.

15 I wonder what the hall is…

I wonder what the hall is going to do with offensive players, especially QB and WRs.  Wilson to me seems a lot like Rivers and Ryan, extremely good for extremely long, with a big complication attached.

I thinkultimately it's going to be inverse cam Newton, whose been very good, has an mvp, and probably won't make the hall

18 I don't think Cam Newton has…

I don't think Cam Newton has been very good outside of his MVP season. Most years he's failed to break 60% in completion percentage, which is pretty poor in this passing era. In every season he's thrown double digit interception and has only surpassed 4000 yards once. He's a good QB and has always added value with his running abilities but he's never been in the top tier outside of his MVP season. I think Russell Wilson is much, much better, whether he ever wins an MVP or not.

44 Comparing Rivers to Wilson…

Comparing Rivers to Wilson is a lot like comparing a rich kid with absentee parents to a poor kid with two loving parents. Hard to know which situation is better when the ideal is combining both.


Rivers has had a better set of weapons and an offense that allowed him to flourish. He was also saddled with a three stooges organization that was wholly dependent on him to be good or they would lose. Wilson is in an offense that does the opposite - somehow intentionally neutering the scoring output but keeping the game close enough where the defense and special teams make enough plays to win. There is definitely much more stability and consistency to the Seahawks than there ever was to the Chargers.


I personally favor Rivers, but I can see the argument. 

50 hot take

but I'm going to say it's NOT ideal to combine them and end up with poor kid with absentee parents.


Also I kind of suspect that most of the above average QBs in this era get in - Ben, Rivers, Eli (which is kind of a travesty but whatever, if him being a HOFer is the price I pay for getting to see two Pats losses, i'm okay with that), Russ, Stafford (he's going to end up with a Rivers-like run most likely, and huge numbers too), and Matt Ryan are all in, I assume. 

Conversely, the skill positions that don't get to play for 10-20 years (WR/TE/RB) will probably be punished for not having 10 years of 1k yards, plus for some reason we don't always reward good/great receivers for getting yards/tds without a great TD... while also sometimes punishing them for playing with a great QB b/c then the QB is viewed as the reason for the success.

 I assume Gronk, Witten, Kelce, Brandon Marshall, Julio, Desean Jackson, AB are all in... but Jimmy Smith and TORY HOLT WHO WAS FREAKING TERRIFYING!!!!!! can't get in yet I guess, because hall of fame voters appear to all have brain damage (due to playing football, at least there's a reason unlike the baseball HOF where somehow the sportwriters partly act like they have been blasted with high heat regularly).

52 I think you are being too…

In reply to by sportzboytjw

I think you are being too generous. If McNabb is not in(and I thought of him as a borderline case anyway), I think at a minimum Stafford and Ryan never get in. Stafford especially due to a lack of postseason success and no MVP. I bet Rivers has to wait a long time before he gets in.


Gronk and Witten are no brainers. Kelce I think if he retired today would be a no. I think he needs at least 2 more great seasons to be a borderline case and probably 5 more to cement it. Brandon Marshall will not get in. Julio should. Desean won't and AB(assuming this is it) will absolutely not get in. 


Its interesting. Wide Receivers are dinged because of today's passing climate while running backs are dinged because they are held to past standards where running backs once ruled the day. In today's world, running back careers seem to be capped at 5 years. 

55 they probably won't get in

But it's nuts that voters seem to expect non-QBs to destroy their bodies that long to be a HOFer. If you have 5 great seasons, you're (imo) a borderline HOFer. If you have 15 pretty good ones (and hopefully like 2 or more great ones), you're a borderline HOFer (again imo).

That's why for me, Kelce should be in unless he retires this year I guess, Marshall should get in (and would if he wasn't disliked), roddy white, in, AB in-if-not-for-apparently-being-a-sex-creep.

I'm not exactly a Stafford fan, but he's going to end his career in the top 5 in a ton of stats, so unless he gets passed within the first voting window, i expect he's going to go in. Still a better choice than Eli obviously. McNabb should be in! I think he gets dinged a little for being a bit of a dual threat (his passing numbers aren't overwhelming as a result), for the lack of receiving talent he played with, and for flopping so badly at the end (plus for putting on so many LBs at the end).

69 Gronk is fortunate that he…

Gronk is fortunate that he stuck around just long enough to have played more games than Kellen Winslow.

Because there are four guys in the Hall who played in the free substitution era whose career was shorter than Gronk's -- and he doesn't have the narrative that Sayers, Davis, or Hornung have. And the usual school of thought is that Hornung never should have gotten in.

* Kenny Easley is the other.

60 What is Wilson's…

What is Wilson's complication? 

I would think if he retired after this season, he has a good chance of making the hall.  More likely he's going to play 5+ more years and be at least in the top 15 of most passing categories.

63 I assume it's that he had a…

I assume it's that he had a strong running game and defense at the start of his career that meant he didn't have to shoulder that much of the load. And for Rivers and Ryan, maybe that they didn't win a Super Bowl and had some really bad years record-wise?

64 That and there's an open…

That and there's an open question as to what Wilson would look like in an offensive focused entirely on him. Basically, inserting him into a San Diego, Atlanta, or New Orleans style offense. I think he could play that way and succeed, but its not a known thing and we're left trying to extrapolate it based on his efficiency statistics. Its also strange that his coaches, knowing how good he is, still prefer this style. 

72 The offensive style criticism really only applies 2012-14

In 2015 Russ took a big step forward, then in 2016 and 2017 the run blocking, and runinning backs, fell off a cliff.


It got so bad that in 2017 Russel Wilson was the team's leading rusher with 400-500 yards rushing had 4 rushing TDs to the rest of the teams 2 rushing TDs.  And yet, with the total offensive implosion it was injuries to Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor that sunk the team because Wilson was carrying the offense all by himself.

I think he set a record for % of a teams total yards from scrimmage that year.

65 Huh.  Interesting.  I know…

Huh.  Interesting.  I know there was some skepticism about his passing ability early in his career.  But they've swapped out just about the entire offense in the past few years, and he hasn't missed a beat.  In fact, his statistics have been improving the past 2 years.


He's basically been one of the top 5 QB's since 2012, along with Brady, Brees, Rodgers and P Manning.  Not bad company.

66 While technically true, I…

While technically true, I was curious to see how Wilson's QBR stacks over time vs those others you mentioned. The first thing that sticks out is he's never had an amazing year whereas each of those players has had at least 2. The other thing is, when looking at consistency, Manning and Brady are actually above Brees and Rodgers in just how often they rank very high in qbr and how much it stays there.



68 Well, Wilson's QBR was…

Well, Wilson's QBR was nearly at 80 before these last two games. His biggest issue is how often he gets sacked, especially on early downs. Seattle averaged a sack rate of 7.1% on early downs from 2012-2019, worst in the league, versus the league average of 5.2%. He gets sacked a lot on third downs too, but Rodgers is right there with him, and it doesn't matter as much there. Rivers and Ryan have had really bad offensive lines too, but they'll throw it away before the pressure gets there.

82 Wilson is like Brady

Had a ton of success early in his career due to a strong defense and running game that got him some championships and he was good, but not great. Followed by later seasons where he was easily a top 5 QB and dragged his team to the playoffs most years.

21 In Vegas I believe Lamar…

In Vegas I believe Lamar Jackson is now a 1-3 favorite to win the MVP, so he's a heavy favorite to win. I wonder if he actually deserved it over Russell Wilson or other candidates, though. Wilson has been the better passer according to DYAR, although that doesn't account for rushing, of course. It feels like (as is usually the case) the MVP is more a matter of narrative than anything. If the Ravens had had their relatively poor stretch of games now instead of at the beginning of the season Jackson's chances at the MVP would be much lower. The other factor is giving it to an established player like Wilson, or Patrick Mahomes for the second straight year is boring. Awarding a QB in his first full year as a starter is a much more compelling story line.

41 I wonder if he actually…


Add in the rushing, and Lamar has higher total DYAR than Wilson, trailing only Dak.  Lamar is also #1 in passing QBR, over Mahomes & Dak: Wilson comes in at #4.

Lamar & Wilson have the same primary argument going for them: winning teams who would suck without them.  Without Lamar, the Ravens offense would be barely functional.  RG3 is the backup, and he doesn't have Lamar's elusiveness or his quick decision-making.  The O-line is weak at C and LG.  The receivers are emphatically not-scary, except for the rookie Hollywood.  Mark Ingram is a very fine RB, but he's not Adrian Peterson or CJ2K.  A lot of the success of the Ravens RBs is due to defenses having to hesitate to account for Lamar.  Without him, I don't think that offensive personnel would even be average.

Wilson has this same argument, of course.  Seattle would never score without him.  Both teams would be bad without those QBs. 

But Lamar is lifting his unit higher.  The Ravens have the #1 DVOA offense and lead the league in total points, points per drive, yards per drive, etc etc: all the cool stuff.  Lamar is driving their ranking both in passing and rushing.  Seattle has the #1 passing DVOA, but 13th rushing: less efficient overall.  Not Wilson's fault that he has Brian Schottenheimer for a ball-&-chain; but the team isn't having the same offensive success overall.

Lamar is also leading the league in most jaws-dropped per game.  That helps.

The Ravens seem to be cruising for a 1st-rd bye.  Seattle seems headed for a WC.  If those seedings hold, I think that seals Lamar's MVP bid.  An extremely close race; Wilson is utterly deserving.  But the team success and the highlight buzz would seal it.  On the other hand, Seattle and Pittsburgh could each win their respective divisions.  That would change things, in my opinion.


53 " The O-line is weak at C…

" The O-line is weak at C and LG. "

How exactly has this shown itself in games? There's a graphic going around Twitter that shows the Ravens tied for first in the league in being able to sustain pass blockers within 2.5 seconds, while the Seahawks are 5th-worst. Of course Wilson is responsible for some of his sacks, but the OL not being able to prevent pressure for at least 2.5 seconds is on them.

PFF doesn't have a more recent article, but through week 8 they came to the same conclusion, with Baltimore's OL ranked 5th and Seattle's 25th.

54 I am not a Ravens fan, but I…

I am not a Ravens fan, but I actually have to believe Lamar is having an effect on those numbers just by being Lamar. 

I will double down, it will take an offseason for coaches to stumble upon a proper balance in rushing vs contain and or gauging his tendencies. 


Also, I don't know if you saw my articles, but the Seahawks are always terrible in adjusted pressure rate. Like flat out the worst every year, something no other team manages to accomplish. And considering the fact that the top teams in adjusted pressure rate are usually helmed by a guy named Peyton, I tend to credit(or blame) the qb a lot for that.

61 Well the OLs protecting…

Well the OLs protecting Peyton get an asterisk because he gets the ball out before the 2.5 seconds are up, so a top-ranked OL and a 20th-ranked one look pretty much the same most of the time.

As for adjusted pressure rate, that's quite different from pass block win rate within 2.5 sec; of course the former is heavily incluenced by the QB's tendencies. It's true that the QB does affect the latter in at least two ways: by getting to ball out before 2.5 sec and by correctly calling out the protections, but it's mostly on the OL themselves. It turns out that Wilson and Jackson have nearly identical time-to-throw numbers, as seen here:


Both take a long time to throw, so the ability to sustain blocks for 2.5 seconds should be on the OL themselves.

I guess you're arguing that perhaps the rushers going up against Jackson might be holding back a bit because he might slip through, but I didn't see that happening with rushers playing against Wilson, even when he was more elusive than he is now. I just think that Baltimore simply has a very good OL, and the C and LG are only weak relative to Yanda and Stanley.

Now, one thing I haven't noticed is whether or not teams are assigning a spy to Jackson. They sometimes assigned one to Wilson early in his career when he was much more of a threat to take off. Is Jackson maybe too fast and elusive for even a spy to handle?

67 "Without him, I don't think…

"Without him, I don't think that offensive personnel would even be average."

Perhaps, but I think this still overrates Lamar a little.  Those players may not jump off the page in and of themselves, but they are a terrific fit for the approach the offense has adopted.  Yes, they adopted it because of Lamar, but I don't think this diminishes how strong those players are in the skills they are being asked to do.  

If I'm not being clear, think Wes Welker.  If asked to be a traditional receiver, he wouldn't have been anyone's idea of elite.  But in the right role he was allowed to feature particular skills that were elite  I think there's a lot of that going on with Baltimore's offensive roster.  

25 Just an annoying nit-pick

It's "shoo-in," not "shoe-in."  Comes, I believe, from the action of chasing farm animals, like one would shoo chickens back into the hen house--although evidently most early uses are from horse racing when a race was thought to be fixed.  People probably think "shoe-in" because they're more familiar with footwear than chasing farm animals, and from the notion of an unwanted person like a pushy door-to-door salesman wedging his foot in the door when the homeowner tries to shut him out. 

Oh, yeah, we're talking about football--I think your perception of Wilson as at the Roethlisberger/Rivers level is probably the most generally accepted one.  I'm uncertain if it is correct, but I have the impression that it is widespread. 

33 Wilson's per play metrics

Make the nearest comparison Drew Brees.

What Wilson doesn't have are great volume stats because of how Seattle has attempted to call offense.


It will be interesting what a national audience, press corp, does with that.

62 I was curious the magnitude…

I was curious the magnitude of Seattle's offensive play count.


From 2012 (Wilson's rookie season) through 2019, Seattle ranks 21st in the league with 7,752 plays from scrimmage.  New Orleans ranks 5th with 8,150.  That's a difference of 398 plays.  (New England is first at 8,150. Tennessee is last at 7,453).  So Wilson has lost out on about a half a season (compared to the high volume teams) worth of pass attempts due to his slower paced offense.

35 Not directly on point, but:…

Not directly on point, but: as a Ravens fan, I thought that Terrell Suggs' 2011 DPoY award had a huge impact on his HOF chances.  It was a year where the award was contested; could very easily have gone to Jared Allen or DeMarcus Ware.  Hell: Approximate Value liked NaVarro Bowman & Haloti Ngata more than Suggs.  But after Suggs won it, his name changed to "future HOFer Terrell Suggs". 

I'm not trying to say that's the whole story, of course.  Suggs has gone on to play 7+ more seasons, three of them with double-digit sacks; won a SB; and moved up into the top ten on the career sacks list.  He's probably made his Hall case pretty solid.  Just that the award changed the conversation around him.  It also answers the question, was he just a long-career stat-compiler, or was he great at his peak?  Defensive Player of the Year is a pretty good peak.

So with that as background: I think winning an MVP would do a lot to solidify Wilson's eventual case for the Hall.  It provides a definable "peak" for people who need to point to something.  Not winning one would leave him a little vulnerable to accusations of just being "pretty good" for a long period of time.  He's in a tough era for QBs, competing for Hall-voter dollars with Brady & Peyton & Brees & Rodgers.  And his offensive coordinator is not exactly inflating his numbers.  A little bling on his resume would be helpful.

As would winning another SB, of course.




38 The photo negative of…

The photo negative of Terrell suggs is London Fletcher had he gone to the Redskins or the Lions. A guy who is consistently good and had maybe one really great year.


Playing in Baltimore really upped his profile. He had a charismatic personality but that probably doesn't get much play if the team isn't winning. And no offense to suggs himself who was really great that year, but I believe Jared Allen should have won the MVP. Ironically that no MVP might cost Jared Allen a Hall of Fame spot as people might remember him as a player with a bunch of dominant seasons but not enough longevity. The MVP tells voters that he had a special year on top of his dominant seasons, giving him the credibility of being a rare player. 



45 Looking at the list of…

Looking at the list of recent DPotY winners is interesting. Since 2012 there is only JJ Watt, Aaron Donald, Khalil Mack & Luke Kuechly, all of whom are obvious HoFers assuming their careers don't get drastically cut short. Before that there is Charles Woodson, who is eligible next year and I would assume goes pretty much straight in (his CV is immaculate). Suggs and James Harrison are more borderline, and I agree, the defensive MVP title massively helps both their cases. If they both went in, that would leave Bob Sanders as the only DPotY winner/non HoFer since Dana Stubblefield in 1997 (injuries obviously spoiled his case). 

37 I don't think MVPs carry all…

I don't think MVPs carry all that much weight in football "legacy" discussions.  It seems like we talk about it during the year, and then immediately forget about it after it's announced.  (It's not like people were making a HOF case for Rich Gannon or Steve McNair.)

What's much more important for QBs is Super Bowl rings and postseason success.  Russell Wilson already has 1 Super Bowl win, 2 NFC Championship Game wins, and 8 playoff wins (versus 5 losses).  Toss in the facts that the Seahawks have never had a losing record since he's been a starter (84-38-1 overall), he has yet to miss a game from injury, and he's one of the all-time great "eyeball test" HOFers, and I don't think an MVP is going to matter much one way or the other.

Full disclosure:  He's one of my favorite players ever, so I'm biased.  But, I don't think I'm wrong.

46 Maybe. I still think it adds…

Maybe. I still think it adds some legitimacy to his resume. I'm not trying to argue that it should, just that it would. Yes the rings will mean a lot, but the overall football community has become wiser to the rings argument. The MVP still retains some individual quality to it.

Think about AP. If he finished with 1800 yards rushing instead of 2k and non MVP, how differently might we view him? I think if the former happened, we'd probably list him as a hall of famer but the later stamped him as an all time great in people's minds. 

58 I think AP is an example for…

I think AP is an example for my case that MVPs don't matter all that much.  I forgot he even won it.  I don't think he's viewed any differently if Manning or Brady edged him MVP voting 2012.  He's an absolute HOF lock either way.  Did Eric Dickerson win an MVP?  No.  If AP retired today (sans MVP), his career would be very comparable to Dickerson's.

On the flip-side, I haven't heard anybody make a serious HOF case for Shaun Alexander despite his MVP.  He seems to be cast into the same lot as Priest Holmes who doesn't have an MVP.

I just don't think they matter that much to people.  Certainly not like in the NBA, where there has only been one MVP in the history of the league who isn't either in the HOF or is a shoo-in once eligible.  Can anybody name him? 

74 It's definitely Derrick Rose…

It's definitely Derrick Rose. Once I was reflecting about how badly Rose's career had fallen apart, and I went back through the MVPs and realized they were all either already in the HOF or were definitely bound there. What's really crazy is that Rose is the youngest MVP ever. He reached MVP status before any other winner, meaning that if you compare players by age he was 'ahead' of all other MVPs at that age. Yet he'll almost certainly end up being the only one to not make the hall. Incredible, in a sad way.

77 It's pretty widely accepted…

It's pretty widely accepted in the NBA community that Rose's MVP win had a lot to do with not giving Lebron a 3rd straight (and what would have in retrospect been the 3rd of 5 straight) MVP award. Not that Rose wasn't incredible that season; he was, and the fact that he was so young and so explosive definitely helped his case. But when the Eastern Conference Finals rolled around and Lebron absolutely shut down Rose, I think everyone understood exactly what that MVP award meant.

As to the comment about the Basketball Hall of Fame being more inclusive: that's true but it's important to remember that Springfield isn't only for NBA players. It honors college and international players as well, so you have guys like Drazen Petrovic, who had his career tragically cut short, or Arvydas Sabonis, who didn't come to the NBA until well past his prime. Neither of those guys had a HOF-worthy NBA career but they did enough in Euroleague/international play to merit the honor.

76 I guess they have to be. …

I guess they have to be.  With only 5 players on the court at a time (and maybe 7 or 8 who play much during a game), they would probably have a lot of years where no HOFers get inducted.  Compared to MLB and NFL which have so many more players (and positions) from which to choose HOFers.

75 What overall football…

What overall football community is this? Almost all fans and media commentators value rings over almost everything else and evaluate a player's success or lack of success in winning titles with absolutely no subtlety or critical thought. Debates over the best ever player (whether overall or at a particular position) boil down to virtually nothing besides counting up the championships.

56 Gannon

If Gannon had played a few more games during his 20s (and if he'd produced) he would be a HOFer. His problem is that he basically didn't play in his 20s much, and while his 30s were pretty good they weren't quite dominant enough to overcome being bubby brister for the first decade of his career.

13 Since I'd much rather talk…

Since I'd much rather talk about the 1985 Bears than the current version, I'll predict that they peak in DVOA "next week" (after their 2nd consecutive shutout stomping) then fall back after their loss to Miami and some less impressive stompings.

Now if Aaron did these rankings for the playoffs...

19 1985 DVOA

I really am lookin forward to this. Ever since Andreas came out with the estimated DVOA from 1950 to 2013 I have been really curious about those past teams and their place on the DVOA pantheon. I hope you guys can go back to 1970 at least but whatever happens more past DVOA means more past info for comparison.

22 Can you add coaching decisions DVOA?

Is this possible to compute? There was a lot of discussion on here last week regarding Dallas having a better DVOA on offense than the Ravens, with people not believing that Dallas has a better offense. Now the Ravens have the edge, but it is negligible. I believe that the Ravens offense is better because they are generally playing with 4 downs. Dallas is only playing with 3 downs. This is due to coaching decisions, not the effectiveness of the play of the offense.

36 Thanks, great info

The video and coach ranking chart are great and I was amazed at how much the good coaching decisions/coaching ranks correlate with a team's record.  I would love to know the correlation coefficient.  It would be great to go back over past years, to see how well coaching decisions predict team success, this year it is very predictive.  

26 Stafford injury

On the Playoff Odds page, weighted DVOA rating for 7 different teams is adjusted due to quarterback changes. However, Detroit's rating has never been adjusted, even though Matthew Stafford has been injured for a few weeks and isn't expected to return this week. Why is that? Do you guys think Stafford isn't significantly different from his backups? It sure seems like the Lions have been playing poorly without him.

40 An honest oversight. I try…

In reply to by AK_WDB

An honest oversight. I try to remember to check all the teams every week for quarterback changes but I may not be getting to all of them. I do have a note to make sure to incorporate an adjustment for Detroit next week.

42 adjusted weighting for QB changes

In reply to by AK_WDB

I am curious--did they adjust the Falcons? I mean, adjusting playoff odds for the Jets, Dolphins, Bengals, Redskins, and Giants is worthless at this point.

In my opinion, at this point in the year, the Saints, Chiefs, and Steelers are the only teams whose DVOA ratings--as it matters to the playoff odds--should be adjusted. Everyone else with QB changes are looking at "unrealistic" to "mathematically impossible."

57 QB adjustments aren't just…

QB adjustments aren't just for teams with injured quarterbacks though -- they are also for teams that play AGAINST teams with injured quarterbacks. 

The Texans still have two games left against the Titans. They have a much higher chance of losing one or both of those games against Ryan Tannehill than they would have against Marcus Mariota. Thus, adjusting Tennessee for their quarterback situation changes Houston's playoff odds.

30 Miami has 0 estimated wins…

Miami has 0 estimated wins and 2 actual wins.

Cincinnati has 1.9 estimated wins and 0 actual wins.

Random luck, coaching, or tanking efficiency … which do you think is most at play here?

31 The 2005 Bears had an…

The 2005 Bears had an infamous bad weather game.
The catch there though is they get no benefit from it -- SF had the league's worst offense in 2005. You can see them in the list of worst DVOA teams all-time, at #2. Their offense was about 250% worse than Miami's is currently. So not much benefit there.

The game at Pittsburgh might have mattered. They lost, though, in a windy game played in a muddy snowstorm

1991 Philly's week 16 game against Dallas was played in cold and windy, but the game books aren't sufficiently detailed to say how execrable. Video doesn't look horrid.

Not on the defense list, but the overall DVOA list, the 2004 Steelers played a mud bowl game at Miami -- not as bad as the 2007 game with the punt that stuck, but still bad.

70 The Raiders loss

It was so bad, that Kansas City’s SOS plummeted from 6th to 15th on their bye week. KC’s DVOA went down by 2.6% points on opponent adjustments. Maybe Green Bay helped tank it, but Baltimore should have boosted it. The four AFC south opponents should have cancelled out more or less. Denver must have tanked it as well. Backup QB Detroit must have hurt also.