If the Packers struggle without Rodgers, is it an indictment on Ted Thompson?

[th87]

19 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Nope. People use DVOA to determine season performance, not “weighted DVOA”. But naturally, you go to the DVOA page and pick a different column that has different rankings you think suits your top-10 argument better without understanding the meaning of said column. Then, like a deceptive snake, you try to substitute it in place of the metric the people here have been using. The confirmation bias is blatant. 

 

Wow, breathe.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

Which column should I have used?

[TransientTexan]

8 minutes ago, th87 said:

Wow, breathe.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

Which column should I have used?

The one that everyone references (far left)

[th87]

8 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

The one that everyone references (far left)

Weighted DVOA places more emphasis on how a defense played at the end of the season, which many (FO included) would consider closer to their true strength.

But okay. GBs rankings come out to 20, 9, 16, 31. Does this materially change the premise?

[TransientTexan]

2 minutes ago, th87 said:

which many (FO included) would consider closer to their true strength.

I haven’t seen them state this. The “weighted” is just a tool to estimate strength at a particular moment in the season (ie. say there’s a gambler, after week 12, that wants to see the recent strength of a defense he might bet against). The weighted would be a more predictive indicator of the strength of that defense in week 13 due to arbitrarily diminishing performance in another part of the season. It’s not meant to be an evaluation tool for how a team performed over an entire season. 

And if it doesn’t make a material difference, why make the change to that column in the first place when most people just use DVOA? Unless the goal is the try to justify more runaway hyperbole

[th87]

3 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

I haven’t seen them state this. The “weighted” is just a tool to estimate strength at a particular moment in the season (ie. say there’s a gambler, after week 12, that wants to see the recent strength of a defense he might bet against). The weighted would be a more predictive indicator of the strength of that defense in week 13 due to arbitrarily diminishing performance in another part of the season. It’s not meant to be an evaluation tool for how a team performed over an entire season. 

And if it doesn’t make a material difference, why make the change to that column in the first place when most people just use DVOA? Unless the goal is the try to justify more runaway hyperbole

From FO: "WEIGHTED DEFENSE is adjusted so that earlier games in the season become gradually less important. It better reflects how the team was playing at the end of the season."

This appears to be the more meaningful metric, which is why I used it. How teams finish matter far more than topsy turvy early week games.

I had no idea what the numbers would show when I set out on this analysis, so to assert that I "deceptively snaked" in this metric as a way to make the Packers look worse is the height of absurdity and paranoia. Not everyone has this weird nefarious Machiavellian agenda.

I'll do another one with regular DVOA.

[TransientTexan]

4 minutes ago, th87 said:

It better reflects how the team was playing at the end of the season."

That’s different than them saying it’s closer to the team’s “true strength” as you put it.

I didn’t call it deception until you tried to act like your weighted numbers are the ones that are commonly refenced/respected here.

 

[th87]

For my initial analysis, I used Weighted DVOA, which per FO: "WEIGHTED DEFENSE is adjusted so that earlier games in the season become gradually less important. It better reflects how the team was playing at the end of the season."

In my opinion, this is a preferable metric than just "regular" DVOA, because it places emphasis on how a team closes the season, rather than the more fluky early season games.  This is a better measure of a team's quality.  However, this was believed to penalize the Packers, so I added regular DVOA to the analysis.  It is the far-right number.

2016:

Bengals; 16; 17
Bucs; 4; 13
Giants; 2; 2
Broncos; 1; 1
Seahawks; 9; 5
Packers; 23; 20
Jaguars; 13; 12
Jets; 19; 21
Titans; 27; 24

2015:

Jets; 6; 5
Colts; 10; 13
Seahawks; 3; 4
Texans; 4; 8
Packers; 14; 9
Bengals; 9; 10
Browns; 23; 29
Chiefs; 2; 6
Cardinals; 7; 3
Broncos; 1; 1

2014:

Bengals; 17; 14
Bucs; 15; 18
Bills; 2; 2
Packers; 18; 16
Browns; 8; 11
Lions; 7; 3
Steelers; 27; 30
Ravens; 12; 8
Seahawks; 1; 1
Dolphins; 25; 17

2013:

Bengals; 6; 5
Chiefs; 14; 9
Vikings; 26; 27
Ravens; 8; 7
Bucs; 12; 8
Packers; 29; 31
Colts; 19; 16
Browns; 27; 24
Bills; 5; 4
49ers; 11; 13

Conclusions using "regular" DVOA instead:

- Changes were negligible; some teams jumped into the top 10, and some jumped out.
- The Packers got value one year of four (as opposed to none), batting .250.  That's the lowest (I think) for teams showing up on this list in multiple years (Steelers and Dolphins were both 0 for 1).
- Coaching changes were made for teams not getting value, as mentioned previously.
- The Packers remain an outlier, getting the lowest value, and still retaining coaches.
- Whether using Weighted DVOA or Regular DVOA, the takeaways are similar - the Packers have been poor at getting value from their financial investment.

[MacReady]

I really hate DVOA.  So much.  It takes a different approach and since it takes a different approach, it's suddenly more important.  I definitely and strongly lean towards @th87's method because, as he said, the end of the season (for playoff teams) is the only thing that matters.  It's how the Giants won 2 Super Bowls with "average" defenses that became top defenses.  The arrogance being displayed over DVOA here is as obnoxious as the always negative people. 

There is no defending the 45 points against the Cardinals.
There is no defending the 37 points AT HOME against the Giants. 
There is no defending the 45 points against the Niners.
There is no defending the 44 points to Atlanta. 

Teams get injuries.  Defensive coordinators change their defense to reflect those injuries.  Capers doesn't. 

How many defensive coordinators has Belichick had?  His teams have given up 32 points or more twice.  TWICE.  In Brady's time.

Capers has given up 32 points or more 4 times in half as many games. 

It's not that way for just the Patriots.  The Saints have given up 32 points less times in Drew's time. 

In Peyton Manning's career, his teams have given up 32 points or more only 4 times. 

Roethlisberger had to deal with it twice in his career so far. 

When the point of this sport in this league is to win playoff games to get to a Super Bowl, you can throw DVOA out the window.  If the best DVOA defense gives up 32 points or more 4 times out of a 17 game sample size and over the league average in points four more times, you're not fielding good defenses.  Period. 
 

 

[Dubz41]

16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I really hate DVOA.  So much.  It takes a different approach and since it takes a different approach, it's suddenly more important.  I definitely and strongly lean towards @th87's method because, as he said, the end of the season (for playoff teams) is the only thing that matters.  It's how the Giants won 2 Super Bowls with "average" defenses that became top defenses.  The arrogance being displayed over DVOA here is as obnoxious as the always negative people. 

There is no defending the 45 points against the Cardinals.
There is no defending the 37 points AT HOME against the Giants. 
There is no defending the 45 points against the Niners.
There is no defending the 44 points to Atlanta. 

Teams get injuries.  Defensive coordinators change their defense to reflect those injuries.  Capers doesn't. 

How many defensive coordinators has Belichick had?  His teams have given up 32 points or more twice.  TWICE.  In Brady's time.

Capers has given up 32 points or more 4 times in half as many games. 

It's not that way for just the Patriots.  The Saints have given up 32 points less times in Drew's time. 

In Peyton Manning's career, his teams have given up 32 points or more only 4 times. 

Roethlisberger had to deal with it twice in his career so far. 

When the point of this sport in this league is to win playoff games to get to a Super Bowl, you can throw DVOA out the window.  If the best DVOA defense gives up 32 points or more 4 times out of a 17 game sample size and over the league average in points four more times, you're not fielding good defenses.  Period. 
 

 

The DVOA is the excuse to keep Capers.  If we hold him responsible then, pretty soon, MM is held accountable and that will not fit the narrative of the Apologists.  If your goal is to get to the playoffs, then these guys are for you.  If your goal is to be Champions, then make a move.  MM and DC have proven they can't get it done over the last 6 years.  Our defense in BIG playoff games has turned into a joke.  Reading the comments of some trying to cover up the deficiencies of the coaches in BIG games is #sad.  You are not holding the bar high enough.  In fact you're lowering the bar and enabling sub par coaching to steal the years away from arguably the most talented QB to play the game.  Major or minor, a shake up it due.  Rattle the complacency out of the organization. Start small if you want and show Dom the door (retirement).  The rest of the needed changes will happen organically.

[incognito_man]

15 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

The DVOA is the excuse to keep Capers.  If we hold him responsible then, pretty soon, MM is held accountable and that will not fit the narrative of the Apologists.  If your goal is to get to the playoffs, then these guys are for you.  If your goal is to be Champions, then make a move.  MM and DC have proven they can't get it done over the last 6 years.  Our defense in BIG playoff games has turned into a joke.  Reading the comments of some trying to cover up the deficiencies of the coaches in BIG games is #sad.  You are not holding the bar high enough.  In fact you're lowering the bar and enabling sub par coaching to steal the years away from arguably the most talented QB to play the game.  Major or minor, a shake up it due.  Rattle the complacency out of the organization. Start small if you want and show Dom the door (retirement).  The rest of the needed changes will happen organically.

DVOA is a metric to compare defenses across the league. It is far superior than anyone pulling out anecdotal and cherry-picked statistics because those are completely absent of context. Using DVOA is not "an excuse" for anything. In fact, one poster is using it as evidence against Capers in another thread.

Do you even know what DVOA is or what it does? What is the actual argument against using it as a comparator? 

[TheOnlyThing]

At this point, DVOA, DVOA weighted, ppg, whatever metric one wants to use is like arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.

After 6.5 years of recurring defensive issues, I can only say I 100% agree with what CWood posted yesterday: "nobody is saying that the defense hasn't underperformed.  It clearly has."

Or are CWood and I wrong, do some folks still maintain the D has NOT underperformed?

[MacReady]

Just now, incognito_man said:

What is the actual argument against using it as a comparator? 

My issue with it is that it's a statistic, and the more you get into statistics, the worse the facts get.  The only stats I like are bottom line stats.  Points against.  I definitely prefer to have ONLY defensive points (take out iNT/PUNT/fumble returns).  It's the one statistic that I think correlates to playoff wins and wins in general.  It's why top 10 defenses always win Super Bowls, and why the only times bottom 22 teams in points against win Super Bowls is when their defense flips a switch and turns into a top defense in the playoffs like the Giants did twice. 

Anything that makes 37, 45, 45 and 44 point totals in the playoffs look average or good is a bad way to rate/rank a defense over the years.  Injuries aren't an excuse for 35+ point totals especially when you know about the injuries going into the game. 

[Dubz41]

Yes, I do know what it is.  My argument against it is that in incorporates how our defense performs against horrible offenses and great offenses equally.  I also didn't cherry pick anything.  Our record over the last six years in BIG games is deplorable.  Any good offense rips us up.  Do you understand that?  That we fail miserably against good offenses? 

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Yes, I do know what it is.  My argument against it is that in incorporates how our defense performs against horrible offenses and great offenses equally. 

DVOA actually does the literal exact opposite of that. That is the entire point of it, actually

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

My issue with it is that it's a statistic, and the more you get into statistics, the worse the facts get.  The only stats I like are bottom line stats.  Points against.  I definitely prefer to have ONLY defensive points (take out iNT/PUNT/fumble returns).  It's the one statistic that I think correlates to playoff wins and wins in general.  It's why top 10 defenses always win Super Bowls, and why the only times bottom 22 teams in points against win Super Bowls is when their defense flips a switch and turns into a top defense in the playoffs like the Giants did twice. 

Anything that makes 37, 45, 45 and 44 point totals in the playoffs look average or good is a bad way to rate/rank a defense over the years.  Injuries aren't an excuse for 35+ point totals especially when you know about the injuries going into the game. 

Is there a stronger correlation between gross points against and playoff wins than DVOA and playoff wins? I would be surprised if there is. Mostly because teams that have really good points against also have really good DVOA. I bet they track very similarly.

Opponent offensive points against is typically my go-to comparison tool for defenses as well. It's just easier to digest, but I'm aware of it's flaws as well.