OK, here is, once again, my NFL rankings. For those of you that missed it, last week I introduced this. It's a formula I learned that measures offensive efficiency and is used by collegiate coaches who taught me it to get a handle on their level of execution.
What I've done here is tweaked it to use its inverse to measure defensive performace, and it's points and turnovers functions work to add special teams to the mix. I take the offensive number, subtract the defensive number from that, and I get my final figure. Here's how the league shakes down:
1. Patriots -- Offense: 64.8/Defense: 26.1/Last week: 1 -- 38.7
2. Colts -- Offense: 46.6/Defense: 25.8/Last week: 3 -- 20.8
3. Steelers -- Offense: 42.5/Defense: 23.2/Last week: 2 -- 19.3
4. Cowboys -- Offense: 48.6/Defense: 35.1/Last week: 4 -- 13.5
5. Packers -- Offense: 40.9/Defense: 29.0/Last week: 5 -- 11.9
6. Seahawks -- Offense: 37.8/Defense: 27.8/Last week: 6 -- 10.0
7. Giants -- Offense: 39.0/Defense: 32.0/Last week: 7 -- 7.0
8. Buccaneers -- Offense: 33.0/Defense: 26.5/Last week: 9 -- 6.5
9. Titans -- Offense: 32.2/Defense: 27.7/Last week: 8 -- 4.5
10. Jaguars -- Offense: 34.9/Defense: 31.6/Last week: t-11 -- 3.3
11. Eagles -- Offense: 36.3/Defense: 33.1/Last week: t-11 -- 3.2
12. Chargers -- Offense: 34.4/Defense: 32.7/Last week: 10 -- 1.7
13. Lions -- Offense: 34.8/Defense: 35.6/Last week: 13 -- minus-0.8
14. Cardinals -- Offense: 33.3/Defense: 34.2/Last week: 16 -- minus-0.9
15. Redskins -- Offense: 33.8/Defense: 36.8/Last week: 17 -- minus-3.0
16. Texans -- Offense: 33.3/Defense: 36.7/Last week: 23 -- minus-3.4
17. Vikings -- Offense: 32.0/Defense: 35.5/Last week: 20 -- minus-3.5
18. Saints -- Offense: 36.3/Defense: 39.9/Last week: 14 -- minus-3.6
19. Ravens -- Offense: 26.8/Defense: 30.7/Last week: 18 -- minus-3.9
20. Bengals -- Offense: 38.4/Defense: 42.5/Last week: 15 -- minus-4.1
21. Browns -- Offense: 43.0/Defense: 47.9/Last week: 26 -- minus-4.9
22. Panthers -- Offense: 28.0/Defense: 33.9/Last week: 19 -- minus-5.9
23. Chiefs -- Offense: 23.8/Defense: 30.2/Last week: 24 -- minus-6.4
24. Bears -- Offense: 28.2/Defense: 34.8/Last week: 26 -- minus-6.6
25. Falcons -- Offense: 25.7/Defense: 33.0/Last week: 21 -- minus-7.3
26. Raiders -- Offense: 27.8/Defense: 35.3/Last week: 27 -- minus-7.5
27. Broncos -- Offense: 32.0/Defense: 41.3/Last week: 28 -- minus-9.3
28. Jets -- Offense: 31.7/Defense: 42.8/Last week: 30 -- minus-11.1
29. Bills -- Offense: 27.0/Defense: 38.2/Last week: 22 -- minus-11.2
30. Dolphins -- Offense: 32.2/Defense: 44.0/Last week: 29 -- minus-11.8
31. Rams -- Offense: 26.1/Defense: 40.3/Last week: 31 -- minus-14.2
32. 49ers -- Offense: 17.6/Defense: 38.6/Last week: 32 -- minus-21.0
OK, so those numbers leave the Cowboys at fourth overall, and the best team in the NFC, which is just where they were last week. They're second offensively and 18th defensively. Like I've said, I have more faith in these numbers offensively, because that's how they're meant to be applied, than defensively.
But I know I went over this already: This is all kind of experimental on my part, meant to use a resource I have.
Here are the Cowboys game-by-game figures. If you remember from last week, I was taught that a score of over 40 offensively is a near assurance of victory.
COWBOYS OFFENSE GAME-BY-GAME
9/9 vs. Giants: 60 (W)
9/16 at Miami: 56 (W)
9/23 at Chicago: 52 (W)
9/30 vs. St. Louis: 60 (W)
10/8 at Buffalo: 31 (W)
10/14 vs. New England: 37 (L)
10/21 vs. Minnesota: 40 (W)
11/4 at Philadelphia: 59 (W)
11/11 at Giants: 47 (W)
11/18 vs. Redskins 44 (W)
So the theory, here at least, stands up. The 'Boys hang a 40-plus number, and they're 8-0.
Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Dallas Cowboys news on your cell
E-mail 
Comments
Posted by pedant @ 12:59 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
its points not it's points
Posted by DougO @ 1:07 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
I appreciate the detail and the raw logic of the numbers. But obviously it doesn't take into account the quality of teams against which the stats were achieved. But overall, it seems about right.
Posted by Dan @ 1:37 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
You can't place the Colts there, especially with their injuries, and the fact that we beat them last year.
I can see the Steelers, despite their lackluster performance against the Jets last week. But not the Colts.
The Colts need to be healthy before they could tangle with the Cowboys.
Healthy, they would have all they could handle with our team.
Sometimes a sheer statistical analysis is deceptive.
Run the Colts stats over the last few games. That's probably more informative.
Do a power analysis not by the season, but over the last 4 games, or maybe 3 games.
I think the best team is the Patriots, and the second best team will be decided next Thursday, between us and the Packers.
The idea that the AFC is the varsity and the lowly NFC is but the JV doesn't cut it anymore. Especially now that Favre and the Packers are blowing people out.
Everybody is gaming the Cowboys, trying to find some new scheme to contain our offense, take advantage of our defense. And what success have they to show for it. The only team that succeeded against us is the Patriots.
The Packers game will tell a tale. We'll know then. We thought we would know against the Giants, but the Packers just keep putting together impressive victory after impressive victory, blowing teams out.
So the Packers game will tell the tale.
Posted by Blake weldon @ 1:51 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Um, Breer's grammer was correct....
Plus this is a blog, not the actual paper, we don't need grammer natzi's here.
Posted by Stevenchicago @ 2:51 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Ummm, Breer's grammar was not correct. But maybe it was just a typo.
"Natzi"? That's cute.
Posted by RAMS FAN @ 3:19 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
BLAKE, IT'S YOUR "GRAMMER" THAT IS INCORRECT. THE WORD IS "G-R-A-M-M-A-R", NOT "G-R-A-M-M'E-'R".
Posted by Jeff @ 3:30 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
You guys need to lay off the breer for a while. These are the most comprehensive power rankings, and likely accurate, that I have seen in a long time. Better than Goose's, and I hold him in HIGH esteem. When you have a top 5 or 6 like that, put 2 of those teames together and you don't know who will win. That's a good ranking.
Posted by Bernardo @ 6:22 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
A big downside to statistics in football is that they are based on a very small sample size. I am not saying that the rankings don't reflect what is accurate, but I just always leave the hardcore stats to the baseball people. I mean, the Football Outsiders people said Frank Gore and the Niners were going to be awesome and look where those two are now.
Posted by Maverick @ 6:24 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Breer, go back to your Belicheat employer. You can't spell, can't report, and certainly can't do math. What's funny is that I bet you can't spell "algorithm".
Formulas can't calculate the "human spirit". Can you quantify a man's heart, passion, or talent??? I'll give you a hint........A BIG FREAKING NOOOOOOOO!!!
Having the Steelers ahead of the Cowboys was your big mistake, Pat Boy. The Cowboys have only lost to a winning team. Can the Steelers say that?? Another hint: ANOTHER BIG FREAKING NOOOOOOO!!!!!
Go back to the NE as you have proven, once again, you don't belong here. You can't even freaking spell!!!!
Posted by Maverick @ 6:27 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Hey Weldon. No, but writing correctly, along with proper punctuation helps get the message across. Especially, since being a journalist, that's the basics of a sound writing foundation: spelling and correct sentence structure. Now hit the ground and do ten diagramming sentences!
Posted by Maverick @ 6:29 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Jeff...hold Goose in high esteem?? What are you his brother in-law or cousin? Give me a freaking break. Time to shatter and recognize the illusion you've been having. So wake up!!!
Posted by Philyew @ 6:40 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
The end result is less than the sum of its parts, unfortunately.
Any system that ranks a three-loss team higher than a couple of one-loss teams has to be fundamentally flawed.
The offensive rating is probably very sound, but Breer's personal tweaks don't achieve the necessary outcome, I'm afraid.
Posted by Will @ 6:51 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Albert - again, good on you for undertaking some rigorous analysis of the season. Where do special teams come into play? If you factor that in, then the Steelers drop in the rankings because their kick and punt units are very bad, or at least give up big returns at critical times (Leon Washington for example).
Have you checked out footballoutsiders.com yet? They have the best metrics system for pro football.
They have Dallas around the same area you do, though, but above PIT by a little. Their updated rankings should be out now.
Their metrics though have a huge gap between NE and the rest of the league like you do, then IND, DAL, and PIT are relatively close, then there is another substantial gap between teams like GB, SEA, JAC, etc. They take into account
I'm kind of fascinated by PIT. They are media darlings as always, but I'm not sold on them entirely yet. Their offense is good against bad teams but very solveable. Plus they have lost road games to bad teams. We'll see how the season shakes out. I'm picking them (hoping is more accurate) to beat NE, I think they have the best shot of the remaining opponents.
Posted by Philyew @ 7:05 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Also...in the No. 29 slot, the Bills, with a 5-5 record, rank below the Jets (2-8), Ravens (4-6) and Bengals (3-7) - all of whom they have beaten.
Back to the drawing board, Mr Breer...
Posted by tex @ 7:59 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
The only stat that matters is the one that the "Goose" stated in his column. That is, scoring defense. If your team gives up little, you stand a good chance to win and win in the playoffs.
That's the only thing that's worrisome for the Cowboys. Giving up 23 points and 400 total yards to Jason Campbell should give every die-hard Cow fans pause.
Roy Willy will bite our heroes in the butt somewhere down the line.
Posted by scott @ 8:01 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Good thing the NFL works off records of wins and losses and not stats, because the steelers and colts have worse records than dallas, we have another clown among us!
Posted by The Professor @ 8:14 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
It's petty sad that basic grammar is not taught in our schools and some of the people posting here have no clue. "It's" is grammatically correct. The sentence would be correct if it started "It is a formula..." Breer used a contraction. "It's". It is. Got it? So Pedant & stevenchicago - stop embarassing yourselves.
And Albert, please stop reducing professional football down to a statitical formula; anyone who ever played realizes that often the truth can't be found in numbers - unless it's the final score. Your statistical infatuation reminds me of a famous Mark Twain quote: "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics."
Posted by The Professor @ 8:16 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Yeah, I know, two typos. But not grammatical errors!
Posted by james muckleroy @ 8:17 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
dude, you a are yankee ignoramus...steelers and fat ben..???..watch how the Cowboys destroy the jets...then you'll be dead wrong AGAIN!!!!! I really think you do not deserve this job. Period. Picking other teams, obviously inferior, while your write for DMN??? pantywaste. Cuz you are like a tabloid writer. Do you believe the garbage you write, or do just want us to respond to you with incredulous mockery???? latter probably. Same with goosellin...I have a few words for him and his sissy picks...the pack ??? Brett is a game away from spraying interceptions in his lost ego daze...I'll bet on it. NO competition. Mark my words. Both of these next games will be poundings...don't you get it?? No, you never will.
Posted by misterbretty @ 8:19 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
The problem with your statistical analysis is that it looks backwards and treats every game equally. Using the Colts as an example, would anyone argue that their performance in the last few weeks is better than what they did early in the season when everyone was healthy? Their ranking is benefitting from previous success. Unfortunately for them, once the playoffs begin, past performance is absolutely meaningless. What would be really telling is to look at how a team is playing in the final few games of the season leading up to the playoffs. The key is not how they were playing in week 2 or 3, but how they're playing right now.
One of the things you might want to consider adding into the mix is the trend. Is the team getting better or worse from week to week. You might work out some sort of diminishing value when adding it up over the season. For instance, perhaps you count 100% of the value for the most recent game when coming up with a season average, but only 95% of the one prior, 90% for the game before last, and so on. The further a game is in the past, the less of an impact that single game's number impacts the overall number for the season.
So if you're playing better in recent games (meaning you're getting better as the season goes on) it has a heavier impact on your season long score than poor performance in the first game or two of the season.
In the Colts case, you'd be discounting the impact of their stellar early games but feeling the full impact of the more recent games in which they've performed poorly.
You'd have to play with the discounting value (does a game lose 5% per game into the past, or 3%, or whatever) until you come up with a reasonable standard - but the whole thing should be easily accomplished on a spreadsheet. Once you have the formula and discounts entered, it should be easy to keep up.
Good luck!
Posted by james muckleroy @ 8:24 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Pedant...seriously?? no , IT'S RIGHT!!! CALLED A CONTRACTION, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ADD AN S?? WHERE YOU SERIOUS? GO BACK TO SCHOOL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN'T SPELL OR USE GOOD GRAMMAR. IT'S SAD. REALLY. I NEVER COMMENT ON BAD GRAMMAR AND SPELLING...BUT COME ON...
Posted by james muckleroy @ 8:32 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
i WON'T LAY OFF BREER AND HIS USELESS FLUFF STATS..ON ACCOUNT OF HIS STUPID BIAS TOWARDS THE COWBOYS. HE'S OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE EXTREMELY ANNOYING NEW YORK AND BOSTON DUDES WHO DON'T SHOW US RESPECT.. SHOW SOME RESPECT AND TRUTH, THEN I'LL GLADLY LAY OFF...pATRIOTS ARE LOW LOW CLASS BY THE WAY... MOSS IS A QUITTER AND A BABY. TO ALWAYS DOG T.O.- WITH WHAT THAT JERK-OFF moss PULLS...WHAT A SHAME OF PERCEPTION.. AND YEAH, belichick is the most classless coach I HAVE EVER SEEN. hOW MANY TIME DO WE NEED TO SEE THOSE STATS...WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by tugturdwell @ 8:59 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Good Morning Mr. Muckleroy...have we not had our coffee yet this morning?
But you are right on one point...I don't remember Moss having a big playoff game. T.O. personally kept the Iggles in the Super Bowl with that amazing broke leg game. That's why it will be so exciting watching him and the 'Boys in the playoffs.
Posted by PaulC @ 9:19 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
What I've done here is tweaked it to use its inverse to measure defensive performace, and it's points and turnovers functions work to add special teams to the mix.
The above is the sentence in question. "Its" is used both times in the possessive form--not as a contraction. The first time it is used correctly; the second time ("it's") it is used incorrectly. Either Albert is sloppy or doesn't know the difference. Because of the frequency of such howlers in Albert's prose, however, I believe it is the latter. Pedant is correct. "The Professor" shouldn't be.
Typos are one thing. Everybody makes typos, especially in a blog entry. Continual sloppiness, however, bespeaks of an inferior and ill disciplined intellect. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its
Posted by Maverick @ 9:33 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Disciplined intellect??? He doesn't have one, at best, Paul as you have indicated. Him and the rest of the bloggers are pseudo-intellectual journalists incapable of providing in-depth analysis, much less have a respect for grammar as a whole. I believe this individuals are not intelligence enough to use WORD with spell-check. That, in itself, bothers me. It's even worse that a Yankee cheater can't even spell. At least Timmy and frump boy could do that, but Breer can't even do that.
I remember a Cosby episode where he stated: Would you eat a steak served on a trash lid? No. Because no matter how enticing it is, its in the presentation. Clearly, he and his cohorts lack presentation and image. May I suggest a PR campaign to arrive at a better image? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't care at all, DMN, do you???
Posted by Tim MacMahon @ 9:48 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Albert "Einstein" Breer had a typo in a midnight blog post?! What a crime against Cowboys fans!!
I'll make sure Breer pays for this. It's (that's proper usage, right?) just inexcusable!
Posted by Tod @ 9:50 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Is someone who amuses himself with namecalling like "Yankee cheater" really going to critique on disciplined intellect? Every time I hear a "go back where you came from" call on this blog it just makes me cringe. Get a clue.
Posted by Maverick @ 9:57 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
I believe "namecalling" is clearly hypenated. As for the "Yankee cheater" comment. I had to state something easy enough for Breer, and cohorts, to understand. Definitely, I would hate to do a "Southwest Airlines" on them. :)
Posted by paul @ 10:16 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
you guys need to get a grip. Al offered nothing more than a statistical view. He never said that these were his "personal" views of any of the teams. If you dont like what he writes dont read it. As for spelling and grammar/grammer/grammy who cares. You were able to determine the message he was trying to share. It is a short week for everyone. I for one appreciate what Albert has brought to the blog with the in-depth looks he provides. Some of you guys need to get a life, I mean a real life!
Posted by Brandon B @ 10:49 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
This is ridiculous. A flawed analysis is worthless. This one is obviously flawed and should be discarded. Of course, it would sure be nice if Breer would give us the freakin' formula.
As for "its" vs. "it's", Breer did improperly use "it's" where "its" should have been used. It's funny how Breer can criticize Cowboys players for not playing their positions well, but when someone criticizes Breer for not "playing his position" well, Timmy jumps on here excusing his performance. Writers are expected to use proper grammar and spelling. If a player consistently uses improper technique, Breer would be placing him in the "Moving down" category. Breer is moving down because he uses improper grammar in just about every one of his posts. I bet the DMN editors love having to use the red pen to grade his "real" articles.
Posted by Fraggy @ 11:09 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
are there a bunch of aggies on this blog today? albert's grammar is fine. "it's" is correct. as for the index, i don't see any accounting for points. isn't that how a game is decided? it's nice to play with stats, but not how games and champions are decided. well, in the nfl anyway...albert, you must LOVE the bcs! lol
Posted by BobS9895 @ 11:19 AM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Almost everyone of you guys is an idiot. Give me a break. The guy makes a typo, who gives a s***? I imagine we all have at one point or another. And as for his analysis, where does he say that his analysis is the be all to end all? Nowhere. He is just giving more statistics for informational purposes. Any kind of statistical analysis can be picked apart. You are not showing your intellect or superiority by doing so. Basically you're just showing that you're a pr***. Rather than pick apart what he has done, why not enjoy the additional information and just take it at face value.
Posted by Brandon B @ 12:30 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Fraggy, you might throw in an English class or 2 while you are working on your GED. Or you could wait until you go to A&M. See PaulC's post at 9:19 AM for a full explanation of the use of "its" and "it's".
BobS, you nailed it -- the face value of this statistical analysis is zero.
Posted by Roy Banes @ 1:33 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
It's its and what difference does it make. Breer's power reports are excellent in every way. They are the most comprehensive I've seen by any sports writer. This guy knows his football. The guy spelling Natzi, I think did it on purpose to get his point accross. Who gives a hoot. This is a football class not a grammar class. Pedant is definetly a Pedant Person. One who is too concerned with, or shows off his learning. That is a Pedant. Way to go Mr. Breer.
Posted by PaulC @ 2:37 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Yea, Albert's analyses are worth every penny I pay for them.
Posted by Tom Brady @ 3:12 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Do these rankings take into account how many points we score running it up on hapless opponents? Hummmm?
Posted by John @ 5:45 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
I like pithy analysis, but this looks like quite a bit of work with little payoff. The Patriots have to be seen as the best and most consistent team playing. The next 3 guys are hard to determine relative to the Cowboys because we haven't played them yet. The rest of the teams are a bit of a mess. One could have figured all of that out by just looking at the standings.
Posted by Cow Polk @ 10:00 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Most of you are such a bunch of homer's that is isn't even funny. The man uses statistical analysis for a power ranking and because the 'Boys dont come out where you want them to be you hammer him over grammer and where he is from.
Lets get over the fact that we are not the best team in the league right now. Doesn't mean we wont be for 1 day in Feb and emerge with a ring. As I recall EVERYONE thought the '01 Pats were out of their league against the high powered Rams...
Posted by Chas @ 2:09 PM Fri, Nov 23, 2007
Sorry, but it's an increduously flawed system when your third best team has losses to Arizona, Denver, and the Jets. Time to go back to the mad scientist lab.
Posted by Jim in Austin @ 3:41 PM Fri, Nov 23, 2007
1. Pats 2. Cowboys 3.Colts 3. Pack (tie) 4. Everybody else.
End of story.