Predictions and general chat

[leviramsey]

The Toronto Argonauts are one of the comparatively few extant football clubs older than the Villa

[leviramsey]

Jaguars have claimed Babin off waivers.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Babin could improve the Jaguars enough to move the Eagles into the second pick from the third, in which case cutting Babin would be the best tactical decision the Eagles made in 2012.

There's three possible reasons the Eagles cut Babin:

* locker room cancer

* Lurie has decided to salary dump to make room for another round of big signings for next year

* Reid has decided to scapegoat the defense again

[kurtsimonw]

Those % numbers are a bit clearer now cheers.

I think even I would hate Manning Bowl build up. The Peyton love in every day is annoying as it is, they'd be desperate for him to win!

[maqroll]

LMAO:

[maqroll]

As if things couldn't get any worse for the Chiefs

[Tegis]

Bloody hell

[kurtsimonw]

That is just awful.

[maqroll]

WTF

[leviramsey]

New DVOA ratings

New England is back on top this week, as the 49ers drop into third place after losing to St. Louis. Denver is number two, and these three teams have been ranked one, two, and three in some order every week since Week 8 except for after Week 10, when San Francisco briefly dropped to six after the first St. Louis game. The team that broke into the top three that week was Seattle, which now ranks fourth. These four teams are all above 30% and there is a reasonably sized gap between them and the rest of the league. Of course, the fact that San Francisco and Seattle have to compete for the same division title means that neither team is near the top of our Super Bowl odds. The AFC big three of New England, Denver, and Houston rank one to three... followed by six different NFC teams.

One of those six NFC teams is Chicago, but the Bears' calling card, their historically great defense, has declined over the last three weeks. It's still historically great, but not to quite the same extent. Three weeks ago, the Bears' defense was at -39.9%, the second-best ever through 10 weeks. Now the Bears defense is at -29.2%, the sixth-best ever through 13 weeks. Perhaps you noticed in Quick Reads that Russell Wilson had the highest DYAR of any rookie quarterback in DVOA history this week. The adjustments for playing the Bears defense are high, but they're not as high as they would have been three weeks ago, in part because of Wilson's success this week. The Bears played seven games between Week 3 and Week 10. In each of those games, the Bears had defensive DVOA better than -25%. In their last three games, the Bears have defensive DVOA of 1% (SF), -22% (MIN), and 8% (SEA). That's not particularly bad, but it isn't as good as the Bears were playing before, and with their offense, average or even slightly above-average defense just isn't gonna cut it.

A couple of hours ago I posed the question to readers on Twitter: Can anyone think of specific personnel reasons why the Bears defense has been much worse since Week 11? Obviously, there are plenty of non-personnel reasons, starting with simple regression towards the mean. This could all just be the usual random variation, and they just happened to have three weaker games in a row instead of spreading them out. Their strong defensive rating was also built on a lot of turnovers, and we know that a big turnover margin is unsustainable for a long time, but it isn't like the Bears have been giving up tons of yards and living off only turnovers. The Bears were allowing 4.9 yards per play through Week 10, and that has gone up to 5.7 yards per play since, so the issue is not just one of turnovers.

A number of readers brought up that they aren't bringing the same kind of pass pressure recently. There does seem to be some indication of this. I don't have updated pass pressure numbers yet, but Chicago's Adjusted Sack Rate has dropped from 7.3% in Weeks 1-10 to 4.4% in Weeks 11-13,. They've gone from 2.9 sacks per game to 2.0 sacks per game, and the drop in ASR is even larger because of the opponent adjustments (San Francisco has the worst offensive ASR in the league this season). A number of people who responded to me on Twitter specifically picked out Julius Peppers as a player who doesn't seem to be having the same kind of success in recent weeks.

Some people suggested that the Bears' Cover-2 is simply built to stop passing games, not running games, and they've dealt the last three games with three strong running teams. The problem with this is a) the Bears don't actually play Cover-2 as their primary coverage scheme anymore, and Houston is a great running team, and the Bears had a great defensive game against them even though the team lost 13-7.

Lots of people brought up age, and the idea that an older defense will decline later in the season as players get tired and start to deal with nagging injuries. This is definitely an idea worth testing, but unfortunately I don't have time to do it this afternoon. However, there is a defense older that Chicago's -- Pittsburgh, where the Steelers' defense has improved dramatically over the last few weeks instead of getting worse due to age. I checked just a couple of other old defenses, and didn't find a trend of late-season decline. The Steelers' defense also got better in the second half of last year. In 2010, both Pittsburgh and Denver had defensive starting lineups that averaged over 30 years old, older than this year's Bears, and both defenses improved slightly in the second half of the season. (Yes, Pittsburgh's defense has been pretty old for a while, although they bring in a new starter or two every year.) The 2000 Panthers and 2006 Dolphins are two other defenses that averaged over 30, and they were basically the same in the first and second half of those seasons.

However, even if it isn't as simple as age = injuries = decline, it is true that the Bears are dealing with some defensive injuries. Readers specifically picked out issues with Charles Tillman, Brian Urlacher, Lance Briggs, and Chris Conte. Conte got hurt early in this week's game, and replacement Craig Steltz had problems, although that doesn't explain the other two games. Tillman was listed as probable with a shoulder injury last week, and of course, he's not getting his usual sleep. (I know people laugh when you point out that a player's performance dips right after he brings home a newborn baby, but we are talking about something that significantly affects your health and sleep schedule.) But if Tillman had an injury before that, it wasn't important enough to put on the injury report. Briggs has been probable for two weeks, but he has also played. Urlacher's injury is going to be a bigger problem going forward -- he was listed as probable with a hamstring injury last week, but then he heard it "pop" late in the Seattle game and apparently he's going to be out the next three or four games. Tim Jennings also hurt his shoulder during the game and will miss the next couple of games. These are actually the first major injuries for the Chicago defense; over the last three weeks, any defensive players on the injury report (Tillman, Briggs, Stephen Paea, Shea McClellin, etc.) were listed as probable.

It could be that the offense is hurting the defense. It's conventional wisdom that when the offense doesn't get a lot of time of possession, the defense suffers because it gets tired. That's another one of those issues that I've always meant to study, although you would need to control to make sure that you were controlling for the quality of the defense overall. Between that and the old defense issue, we may have a nice framework here for the Chicago chapter in next year's book. You're welcome, Rivers.

The Chicago pass defense and run defense have declined about the same amount. We don't have defensive coverage numbers yet (again, we're stuck because of our lack of financial resources and dependence on volunteers for game charting) but the "defense vs. receivers" numbers do show some indication of the issues. Chicago's coverage on "other receivers" and running backs in the passing game has stayed the same, but their DVOA against tight ends has gotten worse, and their DVOA against No. 1 and No. 2 receivers has gotten much worse. Looking at sides, the DVOA on passes to the left side has declined a lot more than DVOA on passes to the right side. That would seem to suggest that Tillman has struggled more than Jennings in recent weeks.

Obviously, we can't say what will happen with the Bears defense over the next few weeks. My guess is that Tillman and Peppers will play better but the team won't return to their previous level because a) it was ridiculously good and Urlacher and Jennings are hurt. Of course, I'm talking here about FO adjusted numbers -- if you don't adjust for opponent, I'm sure the Bears defense will look awesome just by virtue of getting to play Arizona once.

[leviramsey]

All 16 teams in the NFC are still mathematically alive for the playoffs...

AFC

1. Texans: 11-1, clinched playoff berth

2. Patriots: 9-3, clinched division

===

3. Ravens: 9-3

4. Broncos: 9-3

===

5. Colts: 8-4

6. Steelers: 7-5

===

7. Bengals: 7-5

8. Jets: 5-7

9. Bills: 5-7

10. Dolphins: 5-7

11. Browns: 4-8

12. Chargers: 4-8

13. Titans: 4-8

===

14. Raiders: 3-9

15. Jaguars: 2-10

16. Chiefs: 2-10

2. Patriots on AFC record: 8-1 vs. 8-2 Ravens vs. 6-2 Broncos (the Ravens win over the Patriots does not come into play until the Broncos and Ravens play or unless the Broncos finish with a different record from the Patriots & Ravens)

3. Ravens over Broncos on AFC record: 8-2 vs. 6-2

6. Steelers over Bengals on division rank

AFCN2. Steelers over Bengals by h2h win

8/AFCE2. Jets on h2h: 2-1 vs. 1-1 Bills vs. 1-2 Dolphins

9/AFCE3. Bills over Dolphins by h2h win

11. Browns & Chargers over Titans on AFC record: 4-5 Browns vs. 4-5 Chargers vs. 3-6 Titans

11. Browns over Chargers by h2h win

12. Chargers over Titans by h2h win

15. Jaguars over Chiefs by AFC record: 2-6 vs. 0-8

NFC

1. Falcons: 11-1, clinched division

2. 49ers: 8-3-1

===

3. Packers: 8-4

4. Giants: 7-5

===

5. Bears: 8-4

6. Seahawks: 7-5

===

7. Redskins: 6-6

8. Cowboys: 6-6

9. Bucs: 6-6

10. Vikings: 6-6

11. Rams: 5-6-1

12. Saints: 5-7

13. Lions: 4-8

14. Cardinals: 4-8

15. Panthers: 3-9

16. Eagles: 3-9

3/NFCN1. Packers over Bears on h2h

NFCE2. Redskins over Cowboys on h2h

7. Redskins on h2h: 2-0 vs. 1-1 Bucs vs. 0-2 Vikings

8. Cowboys on NFC record: 5-5 vs. 4-5 Vikings vs. 3-5 Bucs

9. Bucs over Vikings on h2h

13. Lions over Cardinals on NFC record: 3-5 vs. 2-6

15. Panthers over Eagles on h2h

[leviramsey]

Playoff scenarios

In Week 13, we had five teams that could clinch playoff spots and four teams came through with key wins. The lone outlier was Baltimore, who lost a nailbiter to Pittsburgh and now has to deal with a tough schedule and hungry division chasers in the weeks ahead.

A quick review of where we are in the AFC shows two division champions crowned (New England and Denver both at 9-3), one team that has the best record in the conference at 11-1 (Houston) and has secured a playoff berth and Baltimore with a two-game lead over Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Indianapolis is in the Wild Card driver's seat at 8-4 while both Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have a two-game edge over the rest of the pack fighting for the sixth and final playoff seed.

Over in the NFC, 11-1 Atlanta has clinched the South division title and has a 2.5 game lead over its nearest competitor (8-3-1 San Francisco) for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. Green Bay and Chicago are both 8-4 and headed for a Week 15 clash in Chicago, while the N.Y. Giants hold a one-game lead over both Washington and Dallas with their loss Monday night. The Wild Card race shows the Green Bay-Chicago non-division winner and 7-5 Seattle with the slots if the season ended today, but Minnesota, Tampa Bay and Dallas (and maybe Washington after tonight) are on their heels at 6-6.

* From tiebreaker record keeper Ivan (thenflrules): The four teams that clinched postseason berths on Week 13 (Atlanta, Denver, Houston, New England) are the most teams to secure a playoff spot with four weeks still remaining in a season. The previous record was three (1990: Chicago, N.Y. Giants and San Francisco; 1998: Atlanta, Denver and Minnesota).

* Also from the record books: The three divisions titles clinched this week by New England, Denver and Atlanta are the most division titles clinched with four weeks to play in modern NFL history. Previously, the most was two, with four weeks still remaining in a season (1973, 1990, 2009, 2011).

* If Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati win in Week 14, that will eliminate all teams with eight losses in the AFC (due to Pittsburgh and Cincinnati playing each other in Week 16).

* If Indianapolis wins against Tennessee and Houston loses at New England, Indianapolis will control its own destiny for the AFC South title since the Colts play the Texans twice on Weeks 15 and 17. Hmmmmm.

* If Houston clinches homefield advantage soon, that will render their game against Indianapolis on Week 17 likely meaningless for the Texans. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh fans should be rooting for New England over Houston next Monday night to keep the Texans from clinching the No. 1 seed and potentially rolling over for the Colts.

* Baltimore has a tiebreaker advantage over Cincinnati on division record and Pittsburgh on conference record.

* Dallas has key losses to Seattle and Chicago and five conference losses, which will likely hurt the Cowboys in the wild card hunt. Their best bet is to win the division (they could have a division record advantage over New York).

* How many people are hoping for a wild card weekend game of No. 6 Seattle at No. 3 Green Bay? Anyone remember the ending to Green Bay at Seattle on Week 3? It could be billed the "Replacement Redemption Bowl."

Texans clinch AFC South with a better result than the Colts: because the Colts play the Texans twice, the Texans need to clinch a better W-L record to clinch now

Texans clinch homefield advantage throughout the playoffs with a win, a Colts loss/tie, a Broncos loss, and a Ravens loss: the win means a Patriots loss; this would give the Texans h2h sweep over any teams that could catch them at 12-4

Texans clinch 1st round bye with a win, a Colts loss/tie and one of

* a Broncos loss

* a Ravens loss

Ravens clinch AFC North with a win, a Steelers loss, and a Bengals loss: Ravens would go to 10 wins and have tiebreaker advantage over both Steelers and Bengals, of whom only one could go 10-6.

Ravens clinch playoff berth with either

* win and either a Steelers loss or a Bengals loss

* tie and a Steelers loss and a Bengals loss

In the win case, Ravens guarantee 10-6 at worst. The one of the Bengals/Steelers who doesn't lose could still have a better record, but the Ravens would still finish second in the division, and there are no teams outside of the AFCN who can get 10 wins. As for the tie case, the Ravens could finish 9-6-1 at worst and one of the Steelers/Bengals could finish 10-6 at best, with the other limited to 9-7. The Ravens would still finish second and no wildcard contender in another division could catch them.

Falcons clinch homefield advantage throughout the playoffs with a win, Packers loss/tie, Bears loss/tie, and a 49ers loss: Falcons would be 12-4 (8-4 NFC) at worst. The Bears and Packers could still beat the Falcons on tiebreakers if either wins out; likewise the 49ers could still go 12-3-1 or 12-4 (8-3-1 NFC). Accordingly, the Falcons need to ensure a better W-L record than all three.

Falcons clinch 1st round bye with any of

* win, Packers loss/tie, Bears loss/tie

* win, 49ers loss

* tie, Packers loss, Bears loss

49ers clinch playoff berth with win, Cowboys loss, Vikings loss, Bucs loss, Redskins loss, and either

* Seahawks loss/tie

* Rams loss/tie

49ers winning over Dolphins gets them to 9-6-1 at worst but their worst-case NFC record would remain 6-5-1. One more loss by each of the 6-6 teams (Cowboys, Vikings, Bucs, and Redskins) guarantees the 49ers finishing above them. This brings the contestants for the wild cards to whoever finishes second from Packers/Bears, the 49ers, the Seahawks, and the Rams (one of the last three will, of course, win the NFC West). A Rams loss/tie prevents the Rams from jumping ahead of the 49ers in the division. A Seahawks loss/tie does not prevent the Seahawks from passing the 49ers, but in order to do so, they would have to beat the Rams, thus preventing the Rams from being ahead of the 49ers and therefore guaranteeing the 49ers a berth.

[leviramsey]

And the updated playoff odds

Patriots: 12.1 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 55% finalist, 33% champion, 20% Lombardi

Broncos: 12.1 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 45% finalist, 25% champion, 15% Lombardi

Texans: 13.4 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, 98% division, 62% finalist, 29% champion, 14% Lombardi

Ravens: 10.8 wins, 99% playoffs, 79% division, 23% finalist, 8% champion, 4% Lombardi

Bengals: 9.5 wins, 58% playoffs, 10% division, 8% finalist, 3% champion, 1% Lombardi

Steelers: 9.5 wins, 68% playoffs, 11% division, 6% finalist, 2% champion, 1% Lombardi

Colts: 9.5 wins, 70% playoffs, 2% division, 2% finalist

Bills: 7.2 wins, 3% playoffs

Jets: 6.9 wins, 2% playoffs, 1% top 3 pick

Dolphins: 6.6 wins, 0% playoffs

Chargers: 5.9 wins, 0% playoffs, 4% top 3 pick

Browns: 5.7 wins, 0% playoffs, 5% top 3 pick

Titans: 5.6 wins, 0% playoffs, 6% top 3 pick

Raiders: 4.3 wins, 0% playoffs, 43% top 3 pick, 9% #1 pick

Jaguars: 3.3 wins, 0% playoffs, 82% top 3 pick, 40% #1 pick

Chiefs: 3.3 wins, 0% playoffs, 83% top 3 pick, 40% #1 pick

49ers: 10.8 wins, 97% playoffs, 68% division, 39% finalist, 22% champion, 12% Lombardi

Seahawks: 10.0 wins, 87% playoffs, 32% division, 29% finalist, 16% champion, 9% Lombardi

Falcons: 12.9 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 55% finalist, 24% champion, 8% Lombardi

Packers: 10.8 wins, 95% playoffs, 73% division, 32% finalist, 17% champion, 8% Lombardi

Bears: 10.3 wins, 82% playoffs, 26% division, 20% finalist, 10% champion, 5% Lombardi

Giants: 9.6 wins, 78% playoffs, 64% division, 19% finalist, 9% champion, 4% Lombardi

Redskins: 8.5 wins, 39% playoffs, 29% division, 6% finalist, 2% champion, 1% Lombardi

Bucs: 8.2 wins, 10% playoffs, 0% division, 1% finalist

Cowboys: 7.6 wins, 8% playoffs, 6% division, 1% finalist

Vikings: 7.5 wins, 3% playoffs, 1% division

Rams: 6.9 wins, 1% playoffs

Saints: 6.8 wins, 1% playoffs

Lions: 5.7 wins, 0% playoffs, 5% top 3 pick

Cardinals: 5.2 wins, 0% playoffs, 11% top 3 pick

Panthers: 5.2 wins, 0% playoffs, 14% top 3 pick, 2% #1 pick

Eagles: 4.2 wins, 0% playoffs, 48% top 3 pick, 9% #1 pick

[leviramsey]

Top 10 QBs by total Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement, season

1. Brady: 1590 pass + 34 rush = 1624

2. P. Manning: 1305 pass + 2 rush = 1307

3. Rodgers: 926 pass + 80 rush = 1006

4. Romo: 864 pass + 12 rush = 876

5. Stafford: 767 pass + 28 rush = 795

6. Brees: 789 pass + ? rush = 789?

7. Schaub: 731 pass + ? rush = 731?

8. Griffin: 622 pass + 92 rush = 714

9. Ryan: 667 pass + 42 rush = 709

10. Wilson: 617 pass + 53 rush = 670

Others

Roethlisberger: 621 pass + 12 rush = 633

E. Manning: 583 pass - 19 rush = 564

Smith: 432 pass + 31 rush = 463

Newton: 299 pass + 90 rush = 389

Luck: 244 pass + 117 rush = 361

Kaepernick: 242 pass + 65 rush = 307

Flacco: 203 pass + 14 rush = 217

Rivers: 25 pass + 4 rush = 29

Vick: -17 pass - 4 rush = -21

Cutler: -110 pass + 82 rush = -28

Henne: -94 pass - 6 rush = -100

Weeden: -217 pass + 9 rush = -208

Sanchez: -242 pass - 37 rush = -279

Gabbert: -310 pass + 6 rush = -304

[leviramsey]

Top 10 O-Lines, run-blocking

1. 49ers

2. Giants

3. Bills

4. Vikings

5. Jets

6. Ravens

7. Patriots

8. Bengals

9. Seahawks

10. Texans

Top 10 O-Lines pass protection

1. Giants

2. Broncos

3. Patriots

4. Texans

5. Lions

6. Bucs

7. Browns

8. Falcons

9. Bills

10. Raiders

Top 10 defensive fronts against the run

1. Bucs

2. Eagles

3. Texans

4. Bears

5. Rams

6. Dolphins

7. Chargers

8. Lions

9. 49ers

10. Vikings

Top 10 pass rushing defensive fronts

1. Bengals

2. Cardinals

3. Broncos

4. Panthers

5. Texans

6. Bills

7. Cowboys

8. Packers

9. Giants

10. Seahawks

[maqroll]

More Horror

[leviramsey]

Week 14 DVOA ratings

For a wonderful 24 hours, the Seattle Seahawks were the No. 1 team in DVOA for the first time since Week 1 of 2010 -- and the first time ever in Week 5 or later. Alas, it was not to be, as the Patriots went and clobbered the Texans. New England's victory had a total DVOA of 86.8%, which doesn't even come close to what Seattle did on Sunday. (I wrote about Seattle and the best DVOA games ever yesterday.) However, it was the Patriots' best game of the year, and it propelled them past the Seahawks and into first place.

Some big gaps have opened up between teams in our ratings, with some clear stratification through Week 14. The Patriots and Seahawks have now pulled ahead with two of the best total DVOA ratings of the last 20 years. A little bit behind those teams you will find Denver and San Francisco. Then there's a huge gap. In total DVOA, the gap between San Francisco and No. 5 Green Bay is about 13 percentage points; in weighted DVOA, the gap is between the 49ers and the No. 5 Giants, about 12 percentage points.

If there's one thing right now that FO readers should be telling other football fans who don't read FO, it's this: don't sleep on the Seattle Seahawks.

Yes, yes, I know, they should be 8-6 because of the Fail Mary or Goldengate or what I prefer to call it, "REF-POCALYPSE." That's nice, but it has nothing to do with how they've been playing the last few weeks. Driving home from the Patriots win ast night, the hosts on 98.5 The Sports Hub were talking about which top teams scared them as the Patriots' biggest competition, and they were talking about the Broncos, 49ers, Packers, and Giants ("even though they're inconsistent"). The Seahawks never came up. That's a mistake. This is a very good team right now. The Seahawks have not lost a game by more than a touchdown all season. It's not because they have a particularly bad record in close games; they've just played a lot of them. Seattle is 4-5 in games decided by a touchdown or less (including their win against Green Bay).

The Seahawks are now in the top five for DVOA in all three phases of the game, although it is interesting to note that their defense seems to be regressing at the same time that the offense and special teams have massively improved.

It's interesting to note that the Patriots have almost identical ratings since week 8 as the Seawhawks over the period.

Something else both New England and Seattle have in common: both teams lost close games to Arizona during the Cardinals' four-game winning streak to start the year. That's a distant memory, isn't it? I received numerous tweets on Sunday asking me where the Cardinals stood among the worst offenses we've ever tracked. The surprising answer is: They don't.

That embarassment on Sunday dropped the Cardinals' offensive DVOA from -26.7% to -31.2%. They are now comfortably in last place. But that rating wouldn't make a list of the worst ten offenses we've ever tracked through Week 14. The Cardinals would rank 16th. The same thing is true if we break offensive DVOA down to passing and rushing. I don't have a spreadsheet that puts together how these splits develop week-by-week, so we'll have to compare the Cardinals to other teams over a full season instead of just 13 games, but... Arizona's passing DVOA of -32.1% doesn't even make the list of the worst 20 passing games in DVOA history. In fact, their running game is comparitively worse; the Cardinals and Raiders are basically tied at -20.1%, which would rank them 16th and 17th in DVOA history.

Remember, we changed DVOA this offseason to normalize every season to 0%, so the Cardinals do not miss the bottom of our lists simply because the current offensive environment of the NFL means that the worst offense now will get a lot more yardage than the worst offense 20 years ago. I'm not sure people realize just how bad the worst offenses of the last 20 years really were.

Twenty years ago, that Seattle franchise that walloped Arizona on Sunday had a team that couldn't even average 10 points per game. That team finished the year with offensive DVOA of -41.3% and passing DVOA of -65.3%. That's beyond pathetic, and way worse than what the Cardinals are doing this year, even after including this week's game. Between them, Stan Gelbaugh, Kelly Stouffer, and Dan McGwire had a completion rate of 48.3 percent, 67 sacks, and 23 picks with only nine touchdowns.

That's the worst passing offense we've tracked, but not the worst offense overall. That would be the 2002 expansion Texans, when David Carr took 76 sacks and the running game averaged 3.2 yards per carry. The Cardinals can't come close to the 2005 49ers, who had rookie Alex Smith and his 1-to-11 touchdown-to-interception ratio. That team started Ken Dorsey three times and Cody Pickett twice. They can't come close to the 2004 Bears team that was stuck starting Chad Hutchinson, Craig Krenzel, and Jonathan Quinn after Rex Grossman got hurt early. The Cardinals don't even have the worst offensive DVOA in franchise history. In fact, they don't even have the worst offensive DVOA in Ken Whisenhunt history. The 2010 Cardinals finished the year with -35.6% DVOA. That team's best quarterback was a UFL refugee named Richard Bartel. That was the season that inspired the Cardinals to go out and get Kevin Kolb. And I know people like to say horrible things about Kolb, and he certainly hasn't turned into a viable NFL starter, but can we be honest about the fact that a healthy Kevin Kolb (passing DVOA: -24.3%) would be better than the alternatives of John Skelton (-35.7%) and Ryan Lindley (-64.9%)?

The Cardinals are very bad, but not historically bad, and the same goes for the Jets, Jaguars, and Chiefs.

One last note: Atlanta and Indianapolis are still teams that have won a bunch of close games with very easy schedules. I don't have anything new to add about their low DVOA ratings.

[leviramsey]

Playoff scenarios for week 15

Texans clinch division with win

Texans clinch bye with win and

* Patriots loss/tie and Broncos loss

Ravens clinch division with

* win

* tie and Steelers loss/tie and Bengals loss/tie

* Steelers loss and Bengals loss

Ravens clinch playoff berth with

* tie

* Bengals loss/tie

* Steelers loss/tie

Colts clinch playoff berth with

* win

* tie and at least one of: Bengals loss/tie, Steelers loss/tie, Ravens win

* Jets loss/tie and Bengals loss

* Jets loss/tie and Ravens win and Bengals tie and Steelers tie (<= that's one of the most bizarre scenarios I've seen)

Falcons clinch bye with

* win and at least one of: Packers loss/tie, 49ers loss

* tie and Packers loss

Falcons clinch home field advantage with

* win and Packers loss/tie and 49ers loss

49ers clinch division with

* win and Seahawks loss

49ers clinch playoff berth with

* win

* tie and Cowboys loss/tie and Redskins loss/tie and Vikings loss/tie

* tie and Cowboys loss/tie and Redskins loss/tie and Packers loss

* tie and Cowboys loss/tie and Redskins loss/tie and Bears loss

* tie and Cowboys loss/tie and Vikings loss/tie and Bears loss

* tie and Giants loss and Bears loss and Vikings loss

* Vikings loss and Cowboys loss and Redskins loss and Seahawks loss/tie

Packers clinch division with win

Packers clinch playoff berth with:

* tie and Cowboys loss and Redskins loss and Vikings tie

* tie and Cowboys loss and Redskins loss and Vikings loss and 49ers win/tie

* tie and Cowboys loss and Redskins loss and Vikings loss and Seahawks win

* tie and Cowboys loss and Redskins loss and Vikings loss and Seahawks loss

[leviramsey]

FO playoff chances

Patriots: 12.4 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 60% finalist, 38% champion, 24% Lombardi

Broncos: CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 44% finalist, 25% champion, 15% Lombardi

Texans: 13.2 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, 97% division, 60% finalist, 26% champion, 11% Lombardi

Ravens: 10.3 wins, 100% playoffs, 90% division, 22% finalist, 8% champion, 3% Lombardi

Bengals: 8.7 wins, 46% playoffs, 5% division, 6% finalist, 2% champion, 1% Lombardi

Steelers: 8.6 wins, 54% playoffs, 5% division, 5% finalist, 1% champion

Colts: 9.9 wins, 93% playoffs, 4% division, 3% finalist

Jets: 7.5 wins, 5% playoffs

Chargers: 6.6 wins, 1% playoffs

Bills: 6.4 wins, 1% playoffs

Browns: 6.0 wins, 1% playoffs

Dolphins: 6.4 wins, 0% playoffs

Titans: 5.3 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 9% top 3 pick

Raiders: 4.2 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 55% top 3 pick, 6% #1 pick

Chiefs: 3.0 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 93% top 3 pick, 36% #1 pick

Jaguars: 2.7 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 95% top 3 pick, 57% #1 pick

49ers: 11.1 wins, 99% playoffs, 69% division, 44% finalist, 25% champion, 13% Lombardi

Seahawks: 10.3 wins, 93% playoffs, 31% division, 37% finalist, 23% champion, 12% Lombardi

Falcons: 12.5 wins, CLINCHED playoffs, CLINCHED division, 50% finalist, 20% champion, 6% Lombardi

Packers: 10.9 wins, 97% playoffs, 88% division, 29% finalist, 14% champion, 6% Lombardi

Giants: 9.9 wins, 78% playoffs, 57% division, 20% finalist, 10% champion, 4% Lombardi

Bears: 9.8 wins, 63% playoffs, 10% division, 12% finalist, 5% champion, 3% Lombardi

Redskins: 8.9 wins, 48% playoffs, 31% division, 7% finalist, 2% champion, 1% Lombardi

Cowboys: 8.4 wins, 14% playoffs, 11% division, 1% finalist

Vikings: 8.1 wins, 6% playoffs

Bucs: 7.5 wins, 1% playoffs

Rams: 7.5 wins, 1% playoffs

Saints: 6.5 wins, 0% playoffs

Panthers: 5.7 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 5% top 3 pick

Lions: 5.7 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 6% top 3 pick

Eagles: 5.0 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 17% top 3 pick

Cardinals: 4.9 wins, ELIMINATED playoffs, 19% top 3 pick

Randy Moss Reunion (Patriots-49ers): 9%

Pete Carroll Reunion (Patriots-Seahawks): 9%

XXIV rematch (Broncos-49ers): 6%

XXXI rematch (Patriots-Packers): 5%

XXXIII rematch (Broncos-Falcons): 5%

Matt Schaub's Revenge (Texans-Falcons): 5%

XLII-XLVI rematch (Patriots-Giants): 4%

XXXII rematch (Broncos-Packers): 4%

Manning Bowl (Broncos-Giants): 2%

Harbaugh Bowl (Ravens-49ers): 2%

XX rematch (Patriots-Bears): 2%

2008 Draft Showdown (Ravens-Falcons): 2%

Jay Cutler Reunion (Broncos-Bears): 1%

Shanahan's Revenge (Broncos-Redskins): 1%

Bill Walsh Memorial (Bengals-49ers): 1%

[leviramsey]

So a bit of fantasy betting on the Super Bowl on betfair...

A notional 1000 units available today; I'll be using modified Kelly for this.

Patriots: FO says 24%, back at 4.8, lay at 5 => +10.6% EV on back, -6.0% on lay => back 22 units

Texans: FO says 11%, back at 8, lay at 8.2 => -16% EV on back, +0.7% on lay => lay 9 units (risking 65 units)

Broncos: FO says 15%, back at 8.4, lay at 8.6 => +20.5% EV on back, -4.4% on lay => back 24 units

49ers: FO says 13%, back at 8.2, lay at 8.4 => +1.9% EV on back, -1.8% on lay => back 2 units

Packers: FO says 6%, back at 10, lay at 10.5 => -42.7% EV on back, +3.4% on lay => lay 3 units (risking 29 units)

Falcons: FO says 6%, back at 11, lay at 11.5 => -37.0% EV on back, +2.5% on lay => lay 2 units (risking 21 units)

Giants: FO says 4%, back at 15, lay at 15.5 => -42.8% EV on back, +2.3% on lay => lay 1 unit (risking 15 units)

Seahawks: FO says 12%, back at 22, lay at 23 => +151.4% EV on back, -8.2% on lay => back 68 units

Ravens: FO says 3%, back at 25, lay at 27 => -28.6% EV on back, +0.5% on lay => lay 0 unit (i.e. with a bigger bankroll, laying would be the play)

Steelers: FO says 1%, back at 42, lay at 44 => -60.1% EV on back, +1.2% on lay => lay 0 unit

Bears: FO says 3%, back at 50, lay at 55 => +42.7% EV on back, -1.3% on lay => back 1 unit

Redskins: FO says 1%, back at 85, lay at 90 => -19.2% EV on back , +0.1% on lay => lay 0 unit

Cowboys: FO says 0%, back at 65, lay at 70 => -100% EV on back, +1.4% on lay => lay 0 unit

Colts: FO says 0%, back at 80, lay at 90 => -100% EV on back, +1.1% on lay => lay 0 unit

Bengals: FO says 1%, back at 80, lay at 85 => -24.0% EV on back, +0.1% on lay => lay 0 unit

Vikings: FO says 0%, back at 380, lay at 420 => -100% EV on back, +0.2% on lay => lay 0 unit

Jets: FO says 0%, back 410, lay at 690 => -100% EV on back, +0.1% on lay => lay 0 unit

Chargers: FO says 0%, back 860, lay at 1000 => -100% EV on back, +0.1% on lay => lay 0 unit

So the position summary is

Patriots: backing 22 units: risking 22.00 to win 83.60

Texans: laying 9 units: risking 64.80 to win 9.00

Broncos: backing 24 units: risking 24.00 to win 177.60

49ers: backing 2 units: risking 2.00 to win 14.40

Packers: laying 3 units: risking 28.50 to win 3.00

Falcons: laying 2 units: risking 21.00 to win 2.00

Giants: laying 1 unit: risking 14.50 to win 1.00

Seahawks: backing 68 units: risking 68.00 to win 1428.00

Bears: backing 1 unit: risking 1.00 to win 49.00

So the possible profits (before commission), by winner:

Patriots: +3.60 units

Texans: -175.80 units

Broncos: +99.60 units

49ers: -85.60 units

Packers: -133.50 units

Falcons: -125.00 units

Giants: -117.50 units

Seahawks: +1394.00 units

Bears: -52.00 units

Other: -102.00 units

[leviramsey]

ProFootballMock does more than QBs on Facebook