Vince Lombardi

QuantCoach.com

No Monday Morning Quarterbacks

Follow QuantCoach on Twitter

WELCOME to QuantCoach.com, the only site on the world-wide web that provides meaningful professional football coaching statistics. QuantCoach.com's revolutionary coaching statistics are derived from a peer-reviewed and generally accepted theory of competition known as Growth Theory. Veteran coach Bill Parcells once said, "If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries." But Growth Theory teaches us that success "springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking." In professional football, those "recipes" are the plays that coaches design. Simply, QuantCoach.com's coaching statistics separate the contribution of plays to pro football success from the contribution of players.

THE ARCHIVES (2016-Part 2)

How to Watch the NFL Preseason

There is a lot of talk this time of year that NFL pre-season games are meaningless and that pre-season games should be truncated or even eliminated. QC does not share this opinion.

The NFL pre-season is about research and develoment, which is an internal process that prepares a business for actual competition. Like all other R&D, pre-season is a cost. And costs--unliked revenues and even better profits--are not popular. Costs are something that a smart business seeks to minimize. But, like other fixed costs, there is a certain amount of pre-season R&D cost which must be incurred.

How much pre-season R&D is enough?

It depends. If your team's coaching staff and playmaking personnel have been stable for a number of years and are relatively healthy--the Cardinals, Packers, Vikings, Panthers, Chiefs, Bengals, Steelers and Patriots (if Tom Brady was not suspended)--then less is more. These teams have less to learn about themselves than most of the rest of the league and thus an outsider is likely to learn little to nothing from either the results of their pre-season games or their statistics that describe their performance.

But if a team has made signficant changes in play design and/or playmaking in the off-season, then the pre-season offers glimpses of what one might expect during the regular season. Cleveland offers a splendid case study. With new offensive minded coach Hue Jackson, new dual threat QB Robert Griffin III, and a green as grass defense, QC expects the Browns to have a big play offense and suspect defense. If Jackson can improve the Browns -5.83% play design differential (No. 32 in NFL) and their -9 turnover differential (No. 28), then Cleveland should be competive.

Through 3 pre-season games, the Browns have averaged a robust 9.467 QCYPA when RGIII has been at quarterback. However, when opponents have had their starting quarterback in the game, DC Ray Horton's stop troops are yielding a whopping 9.917 QCYPA. Under those circumstances, the Browns play design differential is -1.33%. That figure would have ranked No. 22 in the NFL in 2015 ahead of such team as the Lions (7-9), Rams (7-9) and Dolphins (6-10). Further, Cleveland is +1 TO. Both their and their opponents QCYPA will assuredly drop by at least a yard once regular season games commence. It's a small sample size (30 RG3 pass attempts; 38 opponent pass attempts), but so far Hue Jackson's team is what QC thought they would be. They're better--4.5% better designed to be exact, which is significantly better. This bodes well for the chances that QC will cash his Cleveland "OVER" season wins ticket.

Well respected NFL analyst Pat Kirwan recently opined that the NFL could do away with full pre-season games and reduce pre-season R&D to a pair of controlled scrimmages. QC is not so sure.

As an initial matter, the NFL has to retain some form of head-to-head encounters between different teams. NFL R&D cannot be done in practice alone. When QC was in high school, he covered Ken Griffey Jr. every day in practice. How did he do it? Easy, he knew the plays the offense ran by heart and he covered Junior so often that he knew his every move. As a result of this knowledge, QC looked much better covering Junior in practice than he would against a far less gifted, but unfamiliar, athlete. QC's knowledge masked deficiencies that could only be seen when that knowledge was not present under game conditions.

A controlled scrimmage might be enough for NFL evaluators to find some hidden talent. For instance, the NY Giants WR Victor Cruz caught his play designers' eye when he caught 3 TD passes in a pre-season game. That type of performance might be just as obvious in a controlled scrimmage.

But future mainstay Broncos Terrell Davis and Shannon Sharpe both made their first impressions on Denver's play designers on special teams. It is harder to simulate real special teams play in a controlled scrimmage than it is under actual game conditions. So some quality players might go unnoticeed if the only opportunity they received to make an impression was a controlled scrimmage.

Moreover, once a controlled scrimmage is on the schedule, it is only a short jump to playing under game conditions. If the NFL is going to incur the cost of controlled scrimmages, it might as well invite the public and play those scrimmages before a live audience under actual game conditions.

QC personally knows how frustrating these pre-season games can be for fans.

On September 2, 2005, QC was in the house in Cincinnati on a humid, windless, miserable 90-degree evening when the Bengals waxed Indianapolis, 38-0, in WK4 of the pre-season. That night the Colts played only 2 of their defensive starters and 0 of their offensive starters. Under Bill Polian, P-rex Manning and his starter friends were usually extinct in the pre-season. (And, occassionally, in the regular season such as WK16 of 2009 when Indy tanked both a regular season game and a perfect season by keeping P-rex in the paddock for the second half of the game.) It was as awful a product as the NFL has ever produced. And QC has not attended an NFL pre-season game since that night.

Neverless, the NFL cannot produce a quality product without R&D. So pre-season games must go on. The public will have to try to be as content with the micro portion sizes as it can be.

And never hesitate to leave at halftime of a pre-season game.

(Home)
(Archives Home)

 

Finding Belichick

How do you find a Hall-of-Famer?

If you are looking for a Hall-of-Fame head coach, QC's advice is to look to see if teams got better after a candidate arrived as either a head coach or coordinator. In addition, if the candidate is working as a coordinator for a "well-regarded" head coach, compare the well-regarded head coach's results with the assistance of the coordinator and his results without the coordinator's assistance. Finally, look for diverse influences in the candidate's background.

Bill Belichick checks all the boxes.

As TABLE 1 below shows, teams immediately got better designed and stayed better designed when Belichick arrived. In Cleveland, the Browns were 5.74% worse designed than opponents and -14 TO in 1990. In 1991, Belchick's first year in Cleveland, the Browns were 1.22% better designed than opponents and +15 TO. Likewise, when Belichick became the DC of New England in 1996 and the NY Jets in 1997, those teams' design and turnover differentials immediately improved by 6.31% and +14 TO and 4.55% and +23 TO, respectively.

Well, you say, Belichick was working for Hall-of-Famer Bill Parcells during those stints with the Patriots and Jets. Shouldn't "The Tuna" get the credit for that growth. Coaching is a collaborative activity. But Parcells record with Belichick's assistance was considerably better with Belichick's assistance than his record when he did not have Belichick's help. With Belichick, Parcells was 117-73-1 (.616) during the regular season and 11-5 in the post-season, including two Super Bowl Championships (1986 NY Giants and 1990 NY Giants), an AFC Champion (1996 Patriots), and an AFC runner-up (1997 NY Jets). Without Belichick, Parcelss was 55-57 (.491) and 0-3 in the playoffs, including a head-to-head loss to Belichick's Browns in a 1994 AFC Wild-Card Game. Yes, this is correct: HOFer Bill Parcells never won a playoff game without the assisance of Belichick's design.

Finally, Belchick's influences were ecletic and subtle. Belchick broke into the NFL under Baltimore DC Maxie Baughan, who for many years was the on-field defensive leader for master defensive designer and HOFer George Allen. Belchick also did a year in Denver in 1978 with DC Joe Collier, the year after Collier's "Orange Crush" defense became the first modern 3-4 defense to carry a team to a Super Bowl appearance.

On the offensive side of the ball, it was Ray Perkins--an innovative offensive mind--not Parcells, who was the Giants HC when Belichick came to New York. And Belichick spent two years in Detroit (1976-1977), the latter as receivers coach, for a little known offensive coordinator named Tommy Hudspeth. In the late 1960s, while head coach at BYU, Hudspeth hired Lavell Edwards, who would go on to transform the passing game at the college level in 1980s. One of Hudspeth's QBs at BYU was Virgil Carter, the player for whom Bill Walsh invented the "West Coast Offense" in Cincinnati and who laid the foundation for much of present day football analytics. Hudspeth's 1976 Lions (6-8) rank 12th on the list of best passer rating differentials in NFL history, the only team on the list with a losing record.

Bill Belichick Coaching Statistics
(Super Bowl Champions in Bold)
(AFC Champion or Runner-Up in Italic)

Year

Team

Record

Play Design (Ha) +/-

Turnover (TO) +/-

1991

Cleveland

6-10

+.0122

+15

1992

Cleveland

7-9

+.0219

+5

1993

Cleveland

7-9

+.0210

-14

1994

Cleveland

11-5

+.0301

-4

1995

Cleveland

5-11

-.0064

-7

2000

New England

5-11

-.0279

-2

2001

New England

11-5

+.0048

+7

2002

New England

9-7

-.0013

+5

2003

New England

14-2

+.0415

+17

2004

New England

14-2

+.0394

+9

2005

New England

10-6

+.0088

-6

2006

New England

12-4

+.0161

+8

2007

New England

16-0

+.0797

+16

2008

New England

11-5

-.0085

+1

2009

New England

10-6

+.0273

+6

2010

New England

14-2

+.0335

+28

2011

New England

13-3

+.0272

+17

2012

New England

12-4

+.0012

+25

2013

New England

12-4

-.0004

+9

2014

New England

12-4

+.0065

+12

2015

New England

12-4

+.0294

+7

Total

Cleveland/New England

223-113

+.0146

+154

(Home)
(Archives Home)

 

Unpacking The Stats That Identify NFL Playoff Teams

A few weeks ago, NFL Radio analyst Pat Kirwan--whose "Moving the Chains" show gets QC home from work just about every evening--took a look at the statistics that identified NFL playoff teams in 2015. Given that as presently structured the NFL playoffs offer 12 spots, Kirwan examined the top 12 teams in several statistical categories and found the best statistical identifiers of playoff teams in 2015 was points allowed (11 of the top 12 teams in points allowed in 2015 qualified for the playoffs) and sacks (9 of the top 12 teams in sacks in 2015 qualified for the playoffs).

Kirwan's effort motivated QC to look a little deeper and "unpack" the statistics that have identified NFL playoff teams over the past 8 years, which is the same period (not coincidentally) that QC has been tracking coaching statistics.

QC looks at not only points allowed and sacks as Kirwan did, but also turnovers and the "foundational stat" of (1) QC's coaching statistics (play design differential or "Ha +/-"), (2) Kerry Byrne's "Cold Hard Football Facts" (passer rating differential or "PR +/-") and (3) Aaron Schatz's "Football Outsiders" (DVOA).

"Unpacking" these statistics demonstrates that as a statistic becomes more "packed" with information, the statistic identifies NFL playoff teams better. To better understand this concept, let us "unpack" four NFL statistics: (1) sacks, (2) QC's Ha +/-, (3) CHFF's PR +/- and (4) FO's DVOA:

1. Sacks. A sack is an attempt to an attempt a pass. In other words, a sack is a pass play in the playbook, but not on the field because a sack prevents a pass from actually being thrown.

2. QC's Ha +/-. QC's foundational play design differential stat is a pass play both in the playbook and on the field because the statistic includes pass attempt information. The stat also includes sack information, passing yards information, and touchdown pass information. But play design does not include any turnover information because QC believes that turnovers are byproducts, not products, of NFL design and therefore should be analyzed separately just a chemical manufacturer analyzes the chemical product it sells to its customers (a revenue stream asset) separately from the waste byproduct that it must dispose of in compliance with environmental laws (a liablity expense).

3. PR +/-. CHFF's "mother of all stats," passer rating differential includes pass attempt information, passing yards information, touchdown pass information and some, but not all turnover information as PR +/- includes interceptions, but not lost fumbles. Passer rating differential also does not include any sack information.

4. DVOA. According to FO, DVOA breaks down every single NFL play. Thus, DVOA includes not only passing information and turnover information, but also rushing information and special teams information.

TABLE 1 below shows that, as expected, in isolation, the statistic that contains the most information (DVOA) also is the best identifier of NFL playoff teams. Over the past eight years, 76 teams or 9.5 teams per year that have ranked in the top 12 in DVOA have made the playoffs, a nose better than passer rating differential (75 teams or 9.375 teams per year) and not quite a length better than play design differential (69 teams or 8.625 teams per year).

However, if you look at each of these statistics in combination with turnover differential, then play design differential plus turnover differential produces more playoff teams than either DVOA plus turnover differential or passer rating differential plus turnover differential. When combined, play design and turnover differentials have identifed 83 playoff teams since 2008 or 10.375 playoff teams per year, which is better than both DVOA and passer rating differential. (See TABLE 2).

TABLE 3 below shows all playoff teams since 2008 and all teams who have ranked in the top 12 in turnover differential, play design differiential, passer rating differential and DOVA. Playoff teams are highlighted that are ranked in both the top 12 in Ha +/-, PR +/- or DVOA and in turnover differential are highlighted in green. Playoff eams that ranked in the top 12 only in either Ha +/-, PR +/- or DVOA are highlighted in blue. Playoff eams that ranked in the top 12 in turnover differential are highlighted in yellow. (TABLE 3 is consistent with the color wheel, where blue + yellow=green.) The Super Bowl champion is in bold and the playoff teams are arranged from the Super Bowl champion down to the first teams eliminated from the playoffs. Where teams were eliminated in the same round, regular season record determines which team is listed on top. The "Rank" column indicates where teams in the columns to the right finished during the regulat season in play design differential (Ha +/-), passer rating differential (PR +/-), DVOA and turnover differential (TO +/-).

Over the past eight years, only 13 teams have ever made the playoffs that did not rank in the top 12 in play design differential and/or turnover differential. These 13 teams have the following characteristics:

1. Only 4 of the 13 teams made the playoffs as a wild-card. Thus, an NFL team that does not rank in the top 12 in either play design differential or turnover differential and does not win its division has only a 1-in-8 chance (12.5%) to make the playoffs.

2. Two of the 9 division champions to make the playoffs without ranking in the top 12 in either play design differential or turnover differential ranked No. 13 in play design differential, the 2008 Vikings and the 2009 Cardinals. The 2008 Vikings play design +/- figure would have ranked in the top 12 in any year since 2008 and the 2009 Cardinals play design +/- figure would have ranked in the top 12 in any year since 2009.

3. Of the remaining 7 division champions to make the playoffs without ranking in the top 12 in either play design differential or turnover differential, 6 did not have any other (none--0--zip) team in its division that was even .500. In other words, these teams reached the playoffs largely on the strength of the occasionally geographic randomness of the NFL's divisional structure, not their on-field performance over 16 games. (2008 Cardinals 9-7; 2010 Seahawks 7-9, 2011 Broncos 8-8, 2013 Packers 8-7-1, 2014 Panthers 7-8-1, and 2015 Redskins 9-7). Only the 2009 Bengals (10-6) were located in a tough division (Baltimore made the playoffs and Pittsburgh ranked in the Top 10 in Ha +/-, PR +/- and DVOA).

4. Of the 13 teams that made the playoffs that did not rank in the top 12 in play design differential and/or turnover differential, only 2015 Washington (PR +/-), 2014 Baltimore (DVOA) and 2009 Arizona (PR +/-) were identified by the foundational stats of either FO or CHFF. In other words, a team that makes the NFL playoffs that does not rank in the top 12 in play design differential and/or turnover differential is usually a surprise no matter what statistic you use.

TABLE 1

Year

Playoff
Teams (PT)

PT in Top 12
Sacks

PT in Top 12
TO +/-

PT in Top 12
Points Allowed

PT in Top 12
Ha +/-

PT in Top 12
PR +/-

PT in Top 12
DVOA

2015

12

9

9

11

9

9

10

2014

12

5

7

6

7

8

8

2013

12

8

7

9

8

10

10

2012

12

6

9

10

9

10

10

2011

12

7

9

5

8

10

10

2010

12

5

9

9

9

9

8

2009

12

5

7

8

10

10

10

2008

12

9

7

9

9

9

10

Total

96

54

64

67

69

75

76

PT/YR

12

6.75

8.00

8.375

8.625

9.375

9.50


TABLE 2

Year

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- and TO +/-

PT in Top 12
PR +/- and TO +/-

PT in Top 12
DVOA and TO +/-

2015

11

10

11

2014

10

10

10

2013

11

11

11

2012

10

10

10

2011

10

10

10

2010

11

10

9

2009

10

10

10

2008

10

10

10

Total

83

81

81

PT/YR

10.375

10.125

10.125


TABLE 3
2015

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (9)

Denver (12-4) (Ha +/-, DVOA)

1.

Seattle

Seattle

Seattle

Carolina

Carolina (15-1)

2.

Arizona

Carolina

Cincinnati

Kansas City

Arizona (13-3)

3.

Cincinnati

Cincinnati

Arizona

Cincinnati

New England (12-4)

4.

Carolina

Arizona

Carolina

Arizona

Kansas City (11-5)

5.

New England

Kansas City

Kansas City

New England

Pittsburgh (10-6) (Ha +/-, DVOA)

6.

Denver

New England

New England

Seattle

Green Bay (10-6) (PR +/-, DVOA)

7.

Pittsburgh

Green Bay

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Seattle (10-6)

8.

Kansas City

Buffalo

Denver

NY Jets

Cincinnati (12-4)

9.

NY Jets

NY Jets

NY Jets

NY Giants

Minnesota (11-5) (DVOA)

10.

Buffalo

Washington

Green Bay

Green Bay

Houston (9-7) (Ha +/-, PR +/-)

11.

Houston

Oakland

Minnesota

Minnesota

Washington (9-7) (PR +/-)

12.

Atlanta

Houston

Buffalo

Houston

2014

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (7)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (8)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (8)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (7)

New England (12-4) (PR +/-, DVOA)

1.

Denver

Green Bay

Seattle

Green Bay

Seattle (12-4)

2.

Green Bay

Dallas

Denver

New England

Green Bay (12-4)

3.

Seattle

Denver

Green Bay

Houston

Indianapolis (11-5)

4.

Dallas

Seattle

New England

Seattle

Denver (12-4)

5.

Indianapolis

New England

Baltimore

Arizona

Dallas (12-4)

6.

San Diego

Buffalo

Dallas

San Francisco

Baltimore (10-6) (DVOA)

7.

Cleveland

Cincinnati

Philadelphia

Buffalo

Carolina (7-8-1)

8.

Houston

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Detroit

Pittsburgh (11-5)

9.

Cincinnati

Kansas City

Buffalo

Dallas

Arizona (11-5)

10.

Kansas City

Houston

Kansas City

Cleveland

Detroit (11-5)

11.

Buffalo

San Francisco

San Francisco

Denver

Cincinnati (10-5-1) (Ha +/-, PR +/-)

12.

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Indianapolis

Atlanta

2013

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (8)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (10)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (7)

Seattle (13-3)

1.

Seattle

Seattle

Seattle

Seattle

Denver (13-3)

2.

Cincinnati

Denver

Denver

Kansas City

San Francisco (12-4)

3.

Denver

New Orleans

Carolina

Indianapolis

New England (12-4) (PR +/-, DVOA)

4.

New Orleans

Philadelphia

New Orleans

San Francisco

Carolina (12-4)

5.

Philadelphia

San Francisco

New England

Philadelphia

New Orleans (12-4)

6.

San Francisco

Cincinnati

San Francisco

Carolina

Indianapolis (11-5)

7.

Arizona

Kansas City

Kansas City

Tampa Bay

San Diego (9-7)

8.

Pittsburgh

Chicago

Philadelphia

New England

Cincinnati (11-5)

9.

San Diego

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

St. Louis

Kansas City (11-5) (PR +/-, DVOA)

10.

Carolina

San Diego

Arizona

Dallas

Philadelphia (10-6)

11.

NY Giants

Carolina

Chicago

Chicago

Green Bay (8-7-1)

12.

Detroit

New England

San Diego

Buffalo

2012

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (10)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (9)

Baltimore (10-6)

1.

Denver

Green Bay

Seattle

New England

San Francisco (11-4-1)

2.

Seattle

Seattle

Denver

Chicago

Atlanta (13-3)

3.

San Francisco

Denver

New England

Washington

New England (12-4) (PR +/-, DVOA)

4.

Green Bay

San Francisco

San Francisco

NY Giants

Denver (12-4)

5.

Carolina

Atlanta

Green Bay

Atlanta

Houston (12-4)

6.

Pittsburgh

Washington

Chicago

Seattle

Green Bay (11-5)

7.

Cincinnati

New England

NY Giants

Houston

Seattle (11-5)

8.

Washington

Houston

Baltimore

Baltimore

Indianapolis (11-5)

9.

Houston

Chicago

Washington

San Francisco

Washington

10.

Atlanta

Pittsburgh

Atlanta

Green Bay

Cincinnati (10-6)

11.

Chicago

Cincinnati

Houston

Tampa Bay

Minnesota (10-6)

12.

Baltimore

Baltimore

Cincinnati

Cincinnati

2011

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (8)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (10)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (8)

NY Giants (9-7)

1.

Pittsburgh

Green Bay

Green Bay

San Francisco

New England (13-3)

2.

Houston

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

Green Bay

San Francisco (13-3) (PR +/-, DVOA)

3.

Green Bay

Houston

New Orleans

New England

Baltimore (12-4)

4.

New Orleans

New England

New England

Detroit

Green Bay (15-1)

5.

NY Giants

Pittsburgh

Houston

Seattle

New Orleans (13-3)

6.

Detroit

San Francisco

San Francisco

Atlanta

Houston (10-6)

7.

New England

Detroit

Baltimore

NY Giants

Denver (8-8)

8.

Oakland

Baltimore

Atlanta

Houston

Pittsburgh (12-4)

9.

Philadelphia

Dallas

NY Jets

Jacksonville

Atlanta (10-6) (PR +/-, DVOA)

10.

Baltimore

NY Jets

Philadelphia

Dallas

Detroit (10-6)

11.

Tennessee

Atlanta

Detroit

Chicago

Cincinnati (9-7)

12.

Dallas

NY Giants

NY Giants

Baltimore

2010

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (8)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (9)

Green Bay (10-6)

1.

San Diego

Green Bay

New England

New England

Pittsburgh (12-4)

2.

Green Bay

New England

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Chicago (11-5) (Ha +/-, PR +/-)

3.

Pittsburgh

San Diego

Green Bay

Atlanta

NY Jets (11-5) (DVOA)

4.

New England

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Green Bay

New England (14-2)

5.

NY Giants

Tampa Bay

Philadelphia

NY Jets

Atlanta (13-3) (PR +/-, DVOA)

6.

Baltimore

Baltimore

NY Jets

Philadelphia

Baltimore (12-4)

7.

Tampa Bay

Kansas City

San Diego

Tampa Bay

Seattle (7-9)

8.

New Orleans

Philadelphia

Atlanta

Kansas City

New Orleans (11-5)

9.

Chicago

Atlanta

NY Giants

Baltimore

Indianapolis (10-6) (Ha +/-)

10.

Indianapolis

New Orleans

New Orleans

St. Louis

Philadelphia (10-6)

11.

Philadelphia

Chicago

Tennessee

Chicago

Kansas City (10-6) (Ha +/-, PR +/-)

12.

Kansas City

NY Giants

Tampa Bay

Detroit

2009

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (10)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (10)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (7)

New Orleans (13-3)

1.

San Diego

New Orleans

Baltimore

Green Bay

Indianapolis (13-3)

2.

Indianapolis

Green Bay

Green Bay

Philadelphia

Minnesota (12-4)

3.

New Orleans

San Diego

Philadelphia

New Orleans

NY Jets (9-7) (Ha +/-, DVOA)

4.

Dallas

Baltimore

New England

Baltimore

San Diego (13-3)

5.

Houston

Indianapolis

Dallas

San Francisco

Dallas (11-5)

6.

Green Bay

Minnesota

New Orleans

San Diego

Arizona (10-6) (PR +/-)

7.

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Minnesota

Denver

Baltimore (9-7) (PR +/-, DVOA)

8.

Philadelphia

Philadelphia

Indianapolis

Minnesota

Green Bay (11-5)

9.

NY Jets

Dallas

Pittsburgh

Carolina

Philadelphia (11-5)

10.

Minnesota

New England

NY Jets

New England

New England (10-6)

11.

New England

Arizona

San Diego

Buffalo

Cincinnati (10-6)

12.

Denver

Houston

Denver

Atlanta

2008

Playoff Teams (PT)

Rank

PT in Top 12
Ha +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
PR +/- (9)

PT in Top 12
DVOA (10)

PT in Top 12
TO +/- (7)

Pittsburgh (12-4)

1.

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Philadelphia

Miami

Arizona (9-7)

2.

Dallas

Green Bay

Baltimore

Tennessee

Baltimore (11-5)

3.

San Diego

Miami

NY Giants

Baltimore

Philadelphia (9-6-1)

4.

Atlanta

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Indianapolis

Tennessee (13-3) (PR +/-, DVOA)

5.

Carolina

Indianapolis

Tennessee

NY Giants

NY Giants (12-4)

6.

Philadelphia

San Diego

Carolina

Green Bay

Carolina (12-4) (Ha +/-, DVOA)

7.

New Orleans

New Orleans

Indianapolis

Carolina

San Diego (8-8)

8.

Green Bay

NY Giants

San Diego

Chicago

Indianapolis (12-4)

9.

Baltimore

Tennessee

New Orleans

Cleveland

Atlanta (11-5) (Ha +/-)

10.

Indianapolis

Washington

Miami

Kansas City

Miami (11-5)

11.

NY Giants

Tampa Bay

New England

Tampa Bay

Minnesota (10-6)

12.

Miami

Philadelphia

Atlanta

Pittsburgh

(Home)
(Archives Home)