Seattle Leads NFC West in VOA and DAVE

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 3:29 PM PDT Comment 23 comments

Seattle is still listed as above average despite losing two games. The Seahawks rank 13th overall, 12th in DAVE, 22nd on offense and 9th on defense. That confirms what I touched on in my last post, that Seattle has the same record, but is outperforming the 2008 Seahawks. The pass defense is powering this team, a pass defense that has played games without many of its best pass defenders. Marcus Trufant has missed the entire season. Lofa Tatupu has missed two games. Josh Wilson has missed a game and a half. Brandon Mebane has missed one game.

I am not going to pretend the difference between this season's pass defense and last season's pass defense is Brian Russell, but another much reviled figure has left Seattle in better hands: John Marshall. Seattle is blitzing less and blitzing more effectively this season and Jim Mora and Gus Bradley deserve credit for that. The Seahawks have been a good pass defense with upside, and close to average at most other things. It's a pass defense and Seahawks team with upside, but downside too. The Colts are by far the best pass offense Seattle has faced. They are first in the NFL in VOA. If Seattle steps up, next week, when VOA becomes DVOA, the Seahawks defense could look like a defining unit. If Seattle crumbles, DVOA will coldly adjust backwards, informing us that San Francisco and St. Louis were worse than we thought, and the Seahawks and the Seahawks pass defense, worse than we think.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Go us.

Jackson & Redding are a part of it, too.

by jacobstevens on Sep 29, 2009 4:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good thing we got rid of Russell early...

…or Bradley’s new D might make him look more competant than he really is.

by djafrot on Sep 29, 2009 9:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

funny comment, but we're not better because Russell is gone

I’m glad Russell is gone; good move. But as JM inferred above, the difference cannot be attributed to Babs starting in place of Russell. Babs has not been that impressive to me. Our defensive line is what is dramatically better. Tapp, Mebane, and Jackson are better than last year. Kerney, Redding, and Cole give them players they didn’t even have. These guys give me hope!

And I hate to say it, but when Deon Grant flattened his own team mate while Hester caught the ball and sped past them both for the winning touchdown, I could have sworn I was watching Brian Russell’s ghost.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Sep 30, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's still VOA at this point, not DVOA (meaning it's not adjusted for opponent)

And let’s be brutally honest here, that makes a huge difference. 2 of the Hawks three games have been against two of the worst passing teams in the NFL so far, and even the Bears passing offense is not all that impressive.

I’m willing to bet that if the numbers could be defense-adjusted the Hawks would be below average so far. In fact the sample sizes are so small Niners and Hawks could swap places if they had just swapped week 1 opponents.

I realize you mentioned it was still VOA, but you seem to be implying that the numbers show Seattle in a good light. Given their opponents, I don’t think that is really the case. And DAVE is still mostly based on FO’s preseason projection at this point, making it nearly meaningless for showing how well any team has played so far.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 29, 2009 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Opponent adjustments make some difference.

Very often it make a negligible difference. The further from the mean, it makes more of a difference than I believe is truly warranted. For instance that San Diego team a few years back (was it 2005?) that was so frequently referred to as possibly the best team to miss the playoffs. They faced tough opponents and flashed brilliance and sometimes looked like the better team. But the strength of opponent was overstated, they were an inconsistent team that made a lot of gaffs in between the brilliance, especially on defense.

by jacobstevens on Sep 30, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

But the difference is that’s after a whole season. Opponent adjustments after 3 weeks would affect the numbers a lot because the sample size is so small so schedules can very wildly.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 30, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Opponent adjustment is implemented gradually

So that is not true, but you are right that Seattle is likely to be adjusted down when the “D” is added to DVOA. How much..?

My problem with your argument is this:

I realize you mentioned it was still VOA, but you seem to be implying that the numbers show Seattle in a good light. Given their opponents, I don’t think that is really the case.

VOA is very positive about the Seahawks. So I am not implying that, I am stating it as fact. You are speculating, not without reason, that DVOA will be less positive about Seattle. That may be true, but DVOA does not exist yet.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But yet the headline says "Seahawks Lead the NFC West in DVOA"...

How can that be true when DVOA doesn’t exist yet?

Opponent adjustment is implemented gradually so that is not true

No, it is true actually (although maybe I phrased it incorrectly). Opponent adjustments have a smaller effect when the whole season has played out because schedules tend to even out over the course of 16 games. But in just a 3 game span schedules can vary wildly. Consider the Vikings, who have played the Lions, Browns, and Niners, three of the worst passing teams in the NFL. Right now their -26.9 pass defense VOA is much, much, much higher than it would be if they had faced the Jaguars schedule (they played the Colts, Texans, and Cardinals), going against three very good passing offenses. Opponent adjustments are put in gradually because DVOA is not as confident in the results after only 3 weeks of play, but if the Niners and Rams do truly have awful passing attacks (as I suspect they do) then the Seahawks pass defense performance so far has not been very good.

VOA is very positive about the Seahawks. So I am not implying that, I am stating it as fact. You are speculating, not without reason, that DVOA will be less positive about Seattle.

My problem is not what you said about VOA, that is a fact of course. My problem is with this:

That confirms what I touched on in my last post, that Seattle has the same record, but is outperforming the 2008 Seahawks. The pass defense is powering this team, a pass defense that has played games without many of its best pass defenders.

And the reasoning stated after. VOA certainly does not confirm that the Hawks pass D is better, it merely shows that they’ve been better against very poor opponents (in a very small sample size). And I find it highly questionable to say the pass D is “powering the team”, when we’re still not sure that unit is any good yet. Almost all NFL teams can mostly shutdown the likes of Marc Bulger and Shaun Hill, so I wouldn’t draw the reasoning up to John Marshall, Brian Russell, etc. It’s more likely just small sample size and a easy schedule so far.

Ultimately we’ll have to see how it plays out in the future, but I don’t really follow the logic behind using Seattle’s pass defense VOA to evaluate the unit. The stat still doesn’t really reveal much at this point, but after next week I think we will have a clearer picture (because we get another game’s worth of data and opponent adjustments will start to be factored in at least).

And for the record, I don’t expect the Hawks to have a poor pass D, but I do believe they would be poor this year if the players injured so far were not to return and I don’t think they have been effective to date.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 30, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The headline is a typo

Opponent adjustment is implemented gradually. Three games against the three worst teams in football and three games against the three best teams in football do not heavily influence DVOA at first, because the opponent adjustment is 10% or 40% or something. A teams schedule does not “even out”. Teams regularly have entirely different levels of competition, especially when you break down a team’s component abilities. The Titans, for instance, play the Texans and Colts twice, so they face a much tougher passing offense schedule than most teams.

You are also overestimating the amount of opponent adjustment. Seattle faced the the Bills, 49ers and Rams through three games last year. Those three finished the season 27, 26 and 32 in passing efficiency. Seattle allowed those teams to pass for 232, 272 and 175 yards. It has faced the Rams, 49ers and Bears this season. It has allowed 170, 123 and 233 yards. That’s a significant improvement. Unless all three are historically awful, the adjustment will not be nearly enough to disprove that Seattle is a significantly better pass defense.

Pass defense VOA evaluates a team’s pass defense. I am not using it for that purpose, that is its only purpose. You are speculating that the opponent adjustment will make Seattle’s DVOA less impressive than its VOA, and no one is arguing that. You are arguing that pass defense VOA is not a tool for evaluating pass defense, and that is wrong.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are arguing that pass defense VOA is not a tool for evaluating pass defense, and that is wrong.

No I’m not, I’m simply saying that at this point (and especially considering Seattle’s situation) it is not a very good one.

Opponent adjustment is implemented gradually.

I know it is implemented that way in the formula, but my point is that the Niners and Rams are probably very bad passing teams, just because DVOA implements their adjustments gradually does not mean we have to do so. True, it makes it more likely that we would be wrong but I think most people would feel safe calling the Niners and Rams poor passing teams.

A teams schedule does not "even out". Teams regularly have entirely different levels of competition, especially when you break down a team’s component abilities.

They don’t even out completely but they even out a heck of a lot more than they do after three weeks. The difference in toughest and weakest schedules after the season is probably 10-15% DVOA, but after only 3 weeks it is 40%. Small sample sizes are much more prone to be swayed by strength of schedule.

You are also overestimating the amount of opponent adjustment.

Probably. Seattle was 30th in pass defense DVOA last year and they’ve clearly been better than that, so I should not have argued that point. However, going from there to “pass defense is powering this team” is a big leap.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 30, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are stuck on that phrase

What is controversial about a 1-2 team being powered by their pass defense? It’s the Seahawks strongest unit so far.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at it Game by Game

Rams — Seattle dominated in every phase.
Niners — SF is conservative to begin with, and once they assumed a lead they had no incentive to stretch Seattle’s pass defense.
Bears — Gross yards solid if unspectacular, efficiency quite good.

To my eyes Seattle’s pass defense wasn’t even challenged much the first two games, and the Bears had a pretty good game against them in the third. One thing I’m pretty sure of, the Colts will challenge the pass defense early and often.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 30, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

We’ll see how it goes. Most everyone gives up a lot through the air to the Colts though, so it wouldn’t be fair to judge them solely on that.

by Brendan Scolari on Oct 1, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then is it significant at all?

You’re saying it would be on account of small sample size, so it’s not going to be a more accurate measurement of the true strength of this team.

by jacobstevens on Sep 30, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes it is

Because the strength of your opponents plays a bigger factor in small sample sizes. Over the course of the season strength of schedule tends to even out (to a degree).

by Brendan Scolari on Oct 1, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But again, it's not going to be a more accurate measurement of the true strength of the team.

No real point to your beef, man.

by jacobstevens on Oct 2, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That all being said

Every estimated strength of schedule that is weaker than Seattle’s so far, is ranked above us. As opponent adjustments come in, I’m very confident they’ll continue to show as slightly above average, because they’ve played slightly above average and they are a slightly above average team.

The 49ers and Bears aren’t as bad as they’ve played so far, and the Rams have faced one of the tougher schedules. There’s very little chance that eventual opponent adjustments of any percentage strength will drop our play thus far to below average with those counter-measures sure to be factored in.

by jacobstevens on Sep 30, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe if we perform better we'll be 0-3?

Just kidding guys. This team is much better then last years version. I do credit that to one exit and not two. John Marshall is gone and Gus Bradley is in. Mora for Holmgren has yet to play out, or should I say Holmgren for Mora/Knapp. After Mora’s tirade I give the edge in press conferences to Coach Holmgren. I think having a healthier set of WR’s has really helped even though were depleted everywhere else. We have though upgraded our defensive depth and that has shown in the 1st 3 weeks. But again, that can be attributed to Big Gus Bradley to. He’s winning me over. I can’t help it. He’s not Ray Rhodes to me yet but he’s slowly climbing the ladder.

by Mr. Blache III on Sep 29, 2009 11:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You liked Ray Rhodes that much?

He motivated his players to be aggressive to make up for his remarkable conservativeness. I think John Marshall was better than Ray Rhodes.

by jacobstevens on Sep 30, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

gotta luv the rhodes

The meanest look in football. Nah, Jim Marshall was more agressive early on but then just become Jello. Rhodes didn’t get enough time with our team. But I like this Bradley though. He’s really good.

by Mr. Blache III on Sep 30, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"The pass defense is powering this team"

C’mon, it’s only been three games. One was against an awful team, one against a conservative team, and one against a high profile QB who just had his best game of the year. Can you really tell?

Seattle’s first and third best corners are out, its second best is gimpy, and one of the safeties doesn’t know what he’s doing. I always hope for the best, but I’ve quite prepared myself for the worst this coming Sunday.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 30, 2009 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is basically what I was trying to say.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 30, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

We’re also playing without our MLB (who’s not horrible in coverage) and a pretty good run-stopping, QB-rushing OLB in Hill.

Mike Wahle(OG), Walter Jones(LT), Chris Spencer(C), Marcus Trufant(CB), Deion Branch(WR), Sean Locklear(OT), Brandon Mebane(DT), Leroy Hill(LB), Lofa Tatupu(LB), Josh Wilson(CB), Justin Griffith(FB), Matt Hasselbeck (QB)

by ninjasocks on Sep 30, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs