Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times

for the Cleveland sports fan

Friday, September 29, 2006

Browns at Raiders Preview

by Corey

You know what they say, fourth time's the charm! This week, the Browns face an opponent that has looked like possibly the worst team in the league so far. Are the Raiders as bad as they say? Let's get to previewin'!

At some point in the next few weeks, we'll be ready to start using plain old, straight-up DVOA in our Browns previews, which will make things a lot easier to follow. We have not yet reached that point, however, as the sample of games played so far is still a little too small to be meaningful. Thus, as I did last week, I'm presenting both a "weighted" version of DVOA, combining pre-season DVOA projections with the numbers from weeks 1-3 (a stat which Football Outsiders is now calling "DAVE"--for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early"), and the actual, raw VOA from weeks 1-3 (still not adjusted for strength of opposition). As usual, take raw VOA totals with a huge grain of salt!

This week's DAVE and VOA totals can be perused here. A detailed explanation of how DVOA works can be read here.

Browns offense vs. Raiders defense:
                    CLE offense  OAK defense
DAVE (weighted) -16.4% -1.5%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA -26.3% 6.9%
actual passing VOA -33.8% -3.4%
actual rushing VOA -16.0% 12.6%
It shocks me, as it should shock you, that in the season's first three games, according to VOA, the Browns' rushing attempts have been more successful on a per-play basis than their passing attempts. I mean, we have seen Reuben Droughns, Jerome Harrison, and Jason Gomillion Wright do absolutely nothing this season. There may be an explanation for the numbers above, however. For one thing, Charlie Frye has been extremely effective as a runner, either picking up first downs with long to go, or scoring touchdowns in goal line situations (three so far!). In fact, the Browns as a team have been effective in goal line or short yardage situations, simply by dint of Frye's runs. Also, apparently, rushing performances have been way down across the NFL so far this year. I have no idea why this is, but since VOA is a percentage over league average, a team like the Browns is helped out by league-wide poor rushing.

So no, I do not think that the Browns' rushing game has been their offensive strength so far this year. I think we are seeing the effects of a small sample size. Similarly, I don't think the Browns offense as a whole has been as bad as the numbers suggest--they have played some pretty good defenses so far (at least the Saints and Bengals are beginning to look like good defenses). The Raiders defense, on the other hand, was projected to be decent, and, in two games so far, actually has been more or less decent. Much as I remain uninterested in seeing the Browns attempt many rushing plays, perhaps this is the week they will get something going on the ground, as Oakland has been stronger on pass defense than on run defense. Advantage: Raiders

Raiders offense vs. Browns defense:
                    OAK offense  CLE defense
DAVE (weighted) -35.8% 1.4%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA -73.7% 8.6%
actual passing VOA -105.4% 16.1%
actual rushing VOA -37.9% -0.6%
This is why stats are misleading when they are not adjusted for strength of opposition. This is also why small sample sizes are dangerous. The Raiders have only played two games so far, and they were against the #1 and #2 defenses in the league, by DAVE (Baltimore and San Diego). Account for that, and the Raiders offense might not look so bad on paper. Even the Raiders' league-worst offensive DAVE is probably getting screwed up by these factors. That said, this is not a good offense by any stretch of the imagination--they were projected to rank 21st in offensive DVOA before the season started. And that was before Aaron Brooks injured himself. Of course, Aaron Brooks was a big part of the problem (he has been quite overrated for years), and this Andrew Walter character is a complete unknown, so I'm not entirely certain it's a good omen that the rookie backup will be getting the start against the Browns on Sunday.

If you recall, these two teams met late last season and LaMont Jordan had a career day, running, as they say, "hog wild". The Raiders managed only 7 total points, however, because the Browns' shutdown corners managed to, as they say, "shut down" the Oakland receivers most thoroughly. Seeing as how the Raiders passing game still looks to be in shambles, I would say that the Browns should be trying to follow that blueprint once more, even if it means allowing LaMont Jordan to rack up lots of yards again. The key will be whether Gary Baxter is ready to play Sunday. I don't have to tell you what a difference there is between Baxter and either Ralph Brown, Daven Holly, or Antonio Perkins. Advantage: Browns

Special teams matchups:
                        Browns  Raiders
DAVE (weighted) 2.0% 2.3%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA 3.8% 4.0%
FG kicking 0.4 1.7
CLE kickoff vs. OAK KR 4.3 3.0
CLE KR vs. OAK kickoff -1.6 -2.0
CLE punt vs. OAK PR 1.2 -1.2
CLE PR vs. OAK punt -0.3 1.5
Wow, talk about an even matchup. Neither the Browns nor the Raiders have a clear advantage in any one area of special teams. For the record, both units are quite strong, ranking #3 (Oakland) and #5 (Cleveland) in the NFL in special teams DAVE. Ironically, the strength of the Browns special teams so far has been the kickoff unit, probably because Robot Phil Dawson has been on hand to deliver so many touchbacks. The weakness? The kickoff return unit, which, you'll recall, got off to a very cold start last year but finished on fire. Advantage: Neither

All things considered, I like the Browns' chances of picking up their first win this weekend (note my cautious choice of words--no predictions!). The Browns offense may be bad, but the Raiders offense is probably worse. That could mean we're in store for a low-scoring battle. Last year, the Browns beat Oakland 9 to 7, and aside from a last-second field goal, that game was a real snoozer. Let's at least hope we have a little more excitement this time around.

Posted at 1:27 AM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

« Home