Football Outsiders' new "last 30 years" lists

[74_75_78_79_]

They rank '91 Eagles' D at #1 although Golic, on 'Mike and Mike' yesterday, modestly disagrees; his logic being that '00 Ravens with their "punt on 3rd down" offense at least won a SB whereas they didn't make playoffs. I disagree. That Ravens offense was less inept than the McMahon/Kemp/Goebel-led one although Jim, when he did play, was not bad at all. Most of the bad rap that Ravens' O gets is due to that infamous TD-less streak. Once that was over with, (Dilfer) really not that bad; and Ravens did have quite a run-game, as well as having Shannon Sharpe. The '91 Birds played against their share of true-blue passing teams/QBs; not especially the case at all with '00 Ravens. With...Bud Carson at DC, Eagles' D of '91 was no Steel Curtain nor '85 Bears (nor that statistically better '86 version) but the past 30 years ('87-thru-'16)? Very hard to argue.

Interestingly the Outsiders placed the '87 Giants' D (not counting scab games, of course) at #24 with no other Parcells G-men D ('86, '90 included) in their top-30!

The Outsiders also ranked the top 30 offenses as well as special teams. The lists, however, are not available unless you're an ESPN Insider member which I am not. They only show #30 and #29 for the offenses which, shockingly, are '98 Vikings and '00 Rams respectively! As for STs, they display #30-thru-#28 ('15 Ravens/'00 Titans/DHester's '10 Bears).

They're also going to release top-30 teams tomorrow, and individual seasons on Friday.

Does anyone know the entire rankings of each and can share? I'm sure there'll be plenty for us to comment on whether we have stock in the Outsiders or not.

[Bryan]

Are the lists subjective, or based on mathematical computation?

[74_75_78_79_]

Are the lists subjective, or based on mathematical computation?

Mainly the latter; it's DVOA (defense-adjusted volume over average). The explanation can be found on their site. Pretty much judging by each play "down-and-distance then comparing it with an NFL average baseline adjusted for situation and opponent".

'98 Vikings only at #30; some of it is explained as they having a soft schedule. The Outsiders also mention '99 Rams in this explanation. They rank '98 Broncos offense at...#3!

[JohnTurney]

https://imgur.com/gallery/7rBFS

[74_75_78_79_]

https://imgur.com/gallery/7rBFS

Thanks, John!

'04 Bills' D at #4??? HMM!

[JohnTurney]

https://imgur.com/gallery/7rBFS

Thanks, John!

'04 Bills' D at #4??? HMM!

Just shows sometimes eyes have to be part of the equation. Numbers and stats are nice, but they can be deceiving at times.

[Bryan]

Just shows sometimes eyes have to be part of the equation. Numbers and stats are nice, but they can be deceiving at times.

I would almost it rather be straight numbers, but the Football Outsiders DVOA has so many permutations for strength of schedule, stadiums, "success points", etc. that the DVOA rating might as well be a subjective grade.

Its not really all that difficult to come up with a "Best of" list that has such a defined time period...thinking of defenses off the top of your head, the casual fan can probably come up with the Ravens, the Bucs, the Steelers, the recent Seahawk and Bronco defenses. It then just becomes a subjective ranking on a data set that people generally agree upon.

I'll chalk up the 1991 Eagles being #1 as Aaron Schatz's typical "I'm the smartest guy in the room...pay for my insider information!" schtick. It was undoubtedly a great defense, but I think when you are talking about the best of the best, postseason performance needs to be taken into account. It would be like ranking Pete Maravich over Lew Alcindor on a list of top college basketball players. The irony with the Eagles is that Football Outsiders specifically says that they "added in" postseason performance, which I guess is an "ahead-of-the-curve" concept when talking about the greatest teams of all-time.

The two selections that stand out to me are the #24 1987 Giants and the #4 2004 Bills.

I can't really understand what statistical trick Football Outsiders did with the 1987 Giants. They threw out the replacement games, but even so I don't see statistical greatness. Perhaps they included the replacement games (which include SF and Washington) in their "Strength of Schedule" calculation, because if you look at their 6-6 record in 'real' games, they only played 3 teams that made the postseason (Bears, Redskins, Saints) and were 0-3 in those games. The 1987 Giants lost twice to the 7-8 Cowboys. They did lead the NFL in 'real' sacks, but the other baseline stats aren't all that impressive. I do like how Football Outsiders elevated the 1987 Giants over the 1987 49ers even though the Niners had superior DVOA, with the rationale that it was worse for the Niners to make the postseason and lose than for the Giants to not make the postseason altogether.

Same thing with the 2004 Bills to a lesser degree...they had a nice sack total and led the league in turnovers, but I don't see the statistical justification for #4 ranking. The Football Outsiders write-up gushes over a cold-weather December game against a 3-10 Browns team led by rookie QB Luke McCown...does that really constitute "greatness"?

[74_75_78_79_]

What makes these lists interesting is simply just seeing things from a different angle even if, in my case as well, I place more stock in the more traditional ways of analyzing albeit eye-test or stats. I myself am thrown for a loop over '04 Bills and '87 Giants inclusions (I don't think they belong either) but still a nice offering of facts/stats about two teams you wouldn't know about otherwise. Interesting-enough just the same to be worth starting a thread about IMO.

On paper it's hard to argue '91 Eagles. Off-paper being the best the past 30 years? Maybe/maybe not. In Jerome Brown's final year - and Seth Joiner coming into his own - that front was surely at their peak. Was it yet another case of that very front disguising that just-Eric Allen secondary, or did that secondary come together in '91 just good enough to make that entire D as balanced off-paper as they were on-paper?

Although I do place '91 Birds above '00 Ravens' D both on and off-paper, off-paper I likely would feel a little safer having that '89/'90 (and '84) Forty Niners, '92/'93 Cowboys, '02 Bucs, '13 Hawks and (also from that very '91 campaign) Redskins defenses against a, say, '84 Dolphins/'99 Rams type offense. IMO even if Randall doesn't get injured in '91, though I see them winning two or three more games (home wild-card spot), I don't see that D carrying them past Redskins anyway if they even would hypothetically make the NFCC. End of day, the O simply wasn't balanced enough; no real O-coordination, #12 simply not a good playoff QB during that time.

'98 Broncos offense over '98 Vikings? Apples and oranges but, off-paper, I can see myself taking the former. Give the rock to TD at least 25 times and let that monster line and a still-great #7 do the rest; wear the D out!

[74_75_78_79_]

http://m.redskins.com/news/blog/article ... fb2d50e82a

Well this one ought to not be too debatable. A very popular opinion even in more-traditional circles. Interesting though is that their gap between #1 and #2 is greater than the gap between #2 and #11.

My (since '87, heck make that '80) pick is still '89 Forty Niners. Tedy Bruschi on ESPN, in response to this list, picked them as well instead of either of his own Pats squads. Phil Yates seated next to him, however (7Den's going to love this, lol), picked the '03 Pats.

'05 Steelers are #29 over the '99 RAMS who are at #30! I've always looked back at that Steelers squad as better than just plain 11-5 (once December came, that is) and see them as better than the more-heralded '08 installment, but I hardly see them amongst all-time-greats. Yes, Rams soft schedule but still, they were certainly better.


As for who they picked for best offense? I still don't know.

[JohnTurney]

I would almost it rather be straight numbers, but the Football Outsiders DVOA has so many permutations for strength of schedule, stadiums, "success points", etc. that the DVOA rating might as well be a subjective grade.

Yeah, that'd be fine, but which ones?

I did a rudimentary one

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... enver.html
Net points is the point allowed plus safeties minus any pick 6s or scoop and scores allowed by the offense minus any kick or punt returns by the special teams plus any pick 6s and scoop and scores tallied by the defense.
Net net yards per game is total yards allowed minus sack yardage minus interception return yardage minus fumble recovery yardage.
Rush Y/A is simple, it's just rushing yards per attempt allowed.
Sack percentage is simple as well. It is the percentage of sacks per attempt plus sacks.
Pass rate is the NFL Passer rating for the defense.
FR is fumble recovers and ties are broken by yardage

but I did it by rankings because I have not spent time to do a formula. I picked things that I find in NFL defensive playbooks...
points allowed is always #1 goal, but I use net points...
yards are always a goal, stopping the run is always a D-cordinator goal, sacks and turnovers are goals...
They never use defensive passer rating, but they do want to have few TDs (part of points) and want picks (part of turnovers) etc.

But is that perfect? No, but one day I'd like to go back and see what this yields.

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... izona.html