Football Outsiders: Turns out that in the "Year Of No Great Team..."

[oldrover]

...there actually was one.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Final 2016 DVOA Ratings

The regular season is now over for The Year of No Great Teams, and it ends with one team climbing up close to deserving the adjective of "great." The New England Patriots finished off the season by stomping the Miami Dolphins 35-14. They end the season with a comfortable lead over the rest of the league with 25.3% DVOA and 34.0% weighted DVOA. Defensive improvement over the second half of the season means the Patriots finished the year above-average in all three phases of the game, one of three teams to do so.

I'm shocked. Shocked!!

 

[BobDigital]

IMO there was no great team this year. It depends what you mean by great though. It is not just how you rank with the rest of the league this is it is about more eye test and where your team ranks all time. However judging teams in different years against each other isn't an exact science.

How I rank teams top teams.

#1 All time teams. Teams I call all time teams are teams you could make a legit argument for being the best team ever. Very few cases of these teams exist and very very few i could make for salary cap era teams.

#2 Great Teams aka "wagons". Though not an all time team this kind of team is fairly rare these days in that it looks particularly strong and dynamic. Before salary cap they were more common but since the salary cap there have been maybe 10 or so true wagon teams.

#3 Superbowl winning caliber teams. Do they look like a team that is worthy of winning a super bowl? Take out the competition and just look at a team and ask that.

#4 A team that can win due to luck and bad competition. These are usually teams that don't win but in rare circumstances win. They are in the mix maybe a bit more than others but are super fortunate to win and usually forgotten quickly and it leaves a bit of a stain on the NFL as it means the product look bad when it happens. Luckily it is rare. Also "getting hot" does not equate to this. Those are 2 different things.

I would put this Pats team in the 3rd category. The Cowboys too but it is lower than the Pats in it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The 2016 Pats are an incredibly well -rounded team.

They pass the ball well
They pass block well
They run the ball well.
The run block well.
WRs are good
TEs are good.
They stop the run
They get decent pressure on the QB (stats support this)
Pass defense is good
They are good in punt and kick coverage
They are good at punting and FG kicking
Remove Cyrus Jones and add a healthy DA or JE and the punt/kick return game is good.
Elite coaching

They are solid up and down.

A Super Bowl win will put this team in its proper place.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

...there actually was one.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Final 2016 DVOA Ratings

I'm shocked. Shocked!!

Hmmmm..... not liking this part:

Believe it or not, this is only the third time the Patriots have finished No. 1 in DVOA during their 16-year streak of winning seasons. They were also No. 1 in 2007 and 2010.

 

[patchick]

The 2016 Pats are an incredibly well -rounded team.

This is why I like this team's chances so much.

Imagine that you're an opponent looking at the Patriots and aiming, BB-style, to take away what they do best. What IS that, exactly? And short of relying on the QB to outrun defenders, what kind of gameplan -- on offense or defense -- can they not run effectively?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Hmmmm..... not liking this part:

Yeah, you're right, being the best is bad. Cease thy silly superstitions.

 

[oldrover]

Hmmmm..... not liking this part:

Yeah, you're right, being the best is bad. Cease thy silly superstitions.

Seriously. Either change your handle or...

...you know.

 

[PatsFan2]

Denver would have had a great Team if they had a QB and RB to support that Great D.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Yeah, you're right, being the best is bad. Cease thy silly superstitions.

Seriously. Either change your handle or...

...you know.

All I said, "Hmmmm..... not liking this part:" I didn't say it was time to change my diapers. I would have figured 2004 or 2014 would have attained #1 as well; guess Pittsburgh and Seattle outranked them those years. Yes, I understand it's just a coincidence that the two teams that did do it were the two biggest postseason disappointments.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

The 2016 Pats are an incredibly well -rounded team.

They pass the ball well
They pass block well
They run the ball well.
The run block well.
WRs are good
TEs are good.
They stop the run
They get decent pressure on the QB (stats support this)
Pass defense is good
They are good in punt and kick coverage
They are good at punting and FG kicking
Remove Cyrus Jones and add a healthy DA or JE and the punt/kick return game is good.
Elite coaching

They are solid up and down.

A Super Bowl win will put this team in its proper place.

A few thoughts to add to your post which I agree with.

1a - the story of the Patriots' off-season evolution is one of diversification. BB has always been about depth, but this year we've seen more hedging away from the development of a core offensive strength that borders [is] dominant (basically, Brady to Gronk) into a team that can win with multiple different functional pieces serving bigger or smaller roles, series by series.

1b - The team that won superbowl 49 had a pretty diverse offense, with a healthy Lafell, Vereen, and of course JE11. Healthy Gronk was obviously a huge plus. Nevertheless, I think there's similarity between the '14 team and this one entering the playoffs - a defense has to defend the entire field against this offense.

2 - the offensive line. Here, let's underline it. The offensive line.

3 - health. Luck plays a sizeable role, but let's also give the team credit for trying to be out on the cutting edge in terms of keeping guys active for games through the research we've heard they put towards avoiding soft tissue injuries.

 

[NashuaPats]

Call me unimpressed with this statistical analysis. The 7-9 Eagles finished ahead of the 12-4 Chiefs. The 9-7 Texans finished behind the 2-14 49ers. When you get results like that, your statistical analysis needs to be thrown out because it sucks.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This is why I like this team's chances so much.

Imagine that you're an opponent looking at the Patriots and aiming, BB-style, to take away what they do best. What IS that, exactly? And short of relying on the QB to outrun defenders, what kind of gameplan -- on offense or defense -- can they not run effectively?

They are certainly beatable but you need a Denver-type defense to do it and an offense that can put up 24+ vs this D.

To my knowledge, I don't know of anyone who can do that now.

Floyd has me very curious. This team hasn't had a 1000 yd threat like him on the outside since Moss.

 

[jimnance]

IMO there was no great team this year. It depends what you mean by great though. It is not just how you rank with the rest of the league this is it is about more eye test and where your team ranks all time. However judging teams in different years against each other isn't an exact science.

How I rank teams top teams.

#1 All time teams. Teams I call all time teams are teams you could make a legit argument for being the best team ever. Very few cases of these teams exist and very very few i could make for salary cap era teams.

#2 Great Teams aka "wagons". Though not an all time team this kind of team is fairly rare these days in that it looks particularly strong and dynamic. Before salary cap they were more common but since the salary cap there have been maybe 10 or so true wagon teams.

#3 Superbowl winning caliber teams. Do they look like a team that is worthy of winning a super bowl? Take out the competition and just look at a team and ask that.

#4 A team that can win due to luck and bad competition. These are usually teams that don't win but in rare circumstances win. They are in the mix maybe a bit more than others but are super fortunate to win and usually forgotten quickly and it leaves a bit of a stain on the NFL as it means the product look bad when it happens. Luckily it is rare. Also "getting hot" does not equate to this. Those are 2 different things.

I would put this Pats team in the 3rd category. The Cowboys too but it is lower than the Pats in it.

Couldnt disagree more. This team is a GREAT team if they win the SB. You people are still underestimating this team. If this team wins the SB-it might be the best Patriots team all time. Thats right. Better than '04. Dont even bring up '07 they couldnt close the deal.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A few thoughts to add to your post which I agree with.

1a - the story of the Patriots' off-season evolution is one of diversification. BB has always been about depth, but this year we've seen more hedging away from the development of a core offensive strength that borders [is] dominant (basically, Brady to Gronk) into a team that can win with multiple different functional pieces serving bigger or smaller roles, series by series.

Agree. I like what Floyd brings to this offense as well. Big, physical outside presence.

IMO he and Lewis and what he does on offense can kinda/sorta offset Gronk for a few games. Just need 3 more!

1b - The team that won superbowl 49 had a pretty diverse offense, with a healthy Lafell, Vereen, and of course JE11. Healthy Gronk was obviously a huge plus. Nevertheless, I think there's similarity between the '14 team and this one entering the playoffs - a defense has to defend the entire field against this offense.

Yep. Aside from the Gronk loss in which you cannot replace, with the additions of Marty, Lewis, White, MM and Floyd as you say they are deeper.

2 - the offensive line. Here, let's underline it. The offensive line.

Overall, I think the 2016 line is better than the 2014 one. You can argue Vollmer/Cannon but I think Mason is better than Wendell by a ton. Thuney is having some problems lately so Connolly has him there. Stork was good in 2014 but really like what Andrews is doing. Smarter player.

3 - health. Luck plays a sizeable role, but let's also give the team credit for trying to be out on the cutting edge in terms of keeping guys active for games through the research we've heard they put towards avoiding soft tissue injuries.

Agree. Health makes any coach and GM look good and knock on wood they have had it this year.

 

[BobDigital]

Couldnt disagree more. This team is a GREAT team if they win the SB. You people are still underestimating this team. If this team wins the SB-it might be the best Patriots team all time. Thats right. Better than '04. Dont even bring up '07 they couldnt close the deal.

This team is god but 04 would smock it no question. 04 was a great team and true wagon.

This team is good but it is not a great team/wagon. When it wins and i think it will it will be a solid super bowl winning team.

If i were to compare teams that won a super with this team as of now I'd rank them 04' > 14' > 16' > 03' > 01'.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Without Goodell's made-up scandal, you could have put Buffalo in the win column. With earlier momentum established, I think Seattle would've been winnable and we'd be 16-0.

dreamin', I know, and maybe we are actually better off without added pressure / coverage of heading toward 19-0. As long as we get #5, nothing else matters.

 

[Wax Frog]

This is why I like this team's chances so much.

Imagine that you're an opponent looking at the Patriots and aiming, BB-style, to take away what they do best. What IS that, exactly? And short of relying on the QB to outrun defenders, what kind of gameplan -- on offense or defense -- can they not run effectively?

As I once said, the BB Patriots are the NFL's Super-Adaptoid*

*Yeah, I was hooked on Marvel Comics as a kid. Never caught this character but the name stuck in my mind as funny.

 

[archstanton543]

If you go 14-2 and were without your Hall of Fame QB for 4 of those games you are a great team.

Period.

 

[fightingirish595]

The Pats are a great team, bad article

 

[WinstonSmith]

Call me unimpressed with this statistical analysis. The 7-9 Eagles finished ahead of the 12-4 Chiefs. The 9-7 Texans finished behind the 2-14 49ers. When you get results like that, your statistical analysis needs to be thrown out because it sucks.

I'm not going to argue the merits of their statistical analysis but I don't think that having a few significant individual ranking deviations from actual w/l records is any reason to discredit their methodology....especially when considering the small sample size of the 16 game season.