The 2010-2011 Falcons: Models of Consistent Efficiency

by James Rael on Jan 2, 2012 8:41 PM EST

Don't believe me? Fair enough. If you look at it quarter by quarter, then sure, we're wildly inconsistent.

But I think you should give this Football Outsiders article a read, because it contains this noteworthy gem:

Atlanta ends up with a variance of 4.6%, which makes the Falcons the most consistent week-to-week team in DVOA history. Amazingly, the second most consistent week-to-week team in DVOA history was last year's Falcons at 4.9%.

If you're not a believer in DVOA, then ~~I hate your face~~ I'm assuming you'll disregard this statistical anomaly in its entirety. I won't.

Why? Because it emphasizes one very important - if somewhat unbelievable - fact. This team is for real. We're not a fluke. Now we just need to maintain and improve. And I'll tell you what: I'm OK with that.

We may not make a deep run in this year's playoffs, but absent some ridiculous regression, we'll be in the hunt for years to come.

Discuss!

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

First, good article and good read James...

I (for one) have never denied anything you have said here…

1) I don’t know enough about DVOA at this point to render an opinion on the subject.
2) I know that we are very efficient…at the end of the day.
3) “Efficient” is not the word I want associated with my Falcons (not implying it is bad). As an example: The Packers Defense is really not all that good (efficient if you will), but they show up when it matters and that’s all that counts at the end of the day!!

I don’t care if we end up with one of the WORST DVOA variances in the history of the stat…as long as we win SB’s…PERIOD!! Maybe I am just looking at it all wrong, wouldn’t be the first time (or last for that matter).

That’s how I see it anyway…

"I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl." - Joe Jacoby, formerly of the Redskins
"To win, I'd run over Joe's mom too." - Matt Millen, formerly of the Raiders

"We now have exactly the same situation as we had at the start of the race, only exactly the opposite" - Murray Walker, Sportscaster

by Blood_Talon on Jan 2, 2012 9:40 PM EST reply actions

I don't know much about DVOA either, but from what research I have done

It is a number on a percentage scale given to an aspect (ie Offense, Defense) based on how it compares to the league average.

I have no idea how the league average is found with their formula, but on a guess it is probably every yard gained times a modifier plus every point gained times a modifier, minus every turnover times a modifier, minus penalties * modifier, etc.

They then come to a concrete number each week which is defined as the league average. They then take each team’s individual numbers times the same modifiers and see how much higher it is than the concrete number they found for the average (The OA part in DVOA stands for “Over Average” as in divided by average, I believe.

In some cases, it is lower than the average and thus generates a negative percentage. Positive percents are good on offense, but bad on defense. Negative percents are good on defense, but bad on offense, if I recall correctly.

Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo

If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!

by Caleb Rutherford on Jan 2, 2012 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

and it's fairly accurate

if people remember from a few years ago when San Diego had the best offense, best defense, and best special teams (by “traditional statistics”), but they were 0-3 or 0-4 during that period.

by falconnuke on Jan 2, 2012 10:28 PM EST up reply actions

I think it's more accurate

but I don’t feel like it’s a whole lot better, to be honest. If it accounts for penalties and whatnot, then that improves the formula, but I feel like it’s just taking the traditional stats and clumping them together using a little fancy math, which causes people to jump on it.

Also, SD’s special teams were one of the worst that year. They had the “#1 offense” and “#1 defense” but allowed all kinds of special teams plays, including two KR TDs to Leon Washington in one game if I remember right.

Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo

If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!

by Caleb Rutherford on Jan 2, 2012 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

forgot about the special teams

It’s not as advanced a statistic as Total QBR, but it’s certainly better than just saying total yards, total penalty yards, etc.

by falconnuke on Jan 2, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

I think I get it...a little. But, I still want SB victories!!

"I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl." - Joe Jacoby, formerly of the Redskins
"To win, I'd run over Joe's mom too." - Matt Millen, formerly of the Raiders

"We now have exactly the same situation as we had at the start of the race, only exactly the opposite" - Murray Walker, Sportscaster

by Blood_Talon on Jan 2, 2012 11:36 PM EST up reply actions

Consistency RULEZ

and we gots it.

(This post has been brought to you by high cravity bbeers)

by KMarch on Jan 2, 2012 10:37 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

I'd rather have Super Bowl winning potential than consistantly better than average

Having said that, I think it speaks mostly to the bland vanilla gameplans MM and BVG put together on a weekly basis regardless of the opponent and not vary much on the players on the field. I still have faith our guys can put together a string of well played games for this postseason

"We did a lot of good things last year, and now we've got Julio ... That does nothing but improve the offense, and we expect to do better. That's our goal, to lead the NFL in everything. Every offensive category." -Roddy White

by Beachy Keen on Jan 2, 2012 11:39 PM EST reply actions

Screw averages...

and the mathematics of the sport. Sure helpful in some ways but it’s about winning Super Bowls. btw I love math.

A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice.

by FrozenFinger on Jan 3, 2012 1:02 AM EST reply actions

Yeah but how does this translate to post season wins?

Oh it doesnt. Good article tho but MM still needs to go.

by pierre02 on Jan 3, 2012 2:23 AM EST via mobile reply actions

I'm confused

What does Darth Vader On Aderol have to do with football? Ok bad joke (really really bad) but seriously, I don’t really understand it but good for us I guess.

by Trainwreck22 on Jan 3, 2012 3:08 PM EST reply actions

Consistency helps you build

It means that if you keep adding talent and don’t lose too many key cogs, you can contend for a playoff berth every year. That’s excellent.

by Dave Choate on Jan 3, 2012 3:47 PM EST reply actions

Because I din't know.

Wht is DVOA?

"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.

by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 3, 2012 9:54 PM EST reply actions

more or less

how well your team did against the league average, weighted to the quality of opponent. Exact formula is proprietary, so I’m not too sure on the specifics.

for example it’s saying that if the worst rushing defense gives up 170 rushing yards per game, and your run game gains only 100, that’s not very good (and would be a negative. But if it’s against the #1 rushing defense (giving up only 63 rushing yards per game), that 100 yards is pretty good, and is in fact better than putting up 200 yards against the worst team.

At least, that’s my understanding of it. QBR is a far more advanced statistic, of course.

by falconnuke on Jan 3, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions