Week 12, MNF Vikings-Bears: Advanced Review
A bad game for both offenses, and their quarterbacks are getting closer to end of the line
The adjusted scores quantify team play quality, with emphasis on stable metrics (success rate) and downplaying higher variance events (turnovers, special team, penalties, fumble luck, etc). Adjusted expected points added (EPA), in conjunction with opportunity-based metrics like total plays and drives, projects adjusted points. Adjusted scores have been tested against actual scores and offer slightly better predictive ability, though their primary benefit is explanatory.
All 2023 & 2022 and historical Adjusted Scores and other site metrics are available in a downloadable format to paid subscribers via Google Sheet.
Find previous advanced reviews here
** Adjusted Scores table:
“Pass” - Pass rate over expectation (based on context of each play and historical averages
“Success” - Success rate on offense, a key metric in adjusted score vs actual
“H & A” - Home or away team
MIN vs CHI
This was an offensive struggle session for both teams, and also struggle for viewers outside of sickos who think defensive football is entertaining. Both teams had success rates in the mid-30% range, and neither team enhanced their efficiency with many big plays.
The Vikings ultimately lost due to an extraordinarily poor late-down conversion rate and turnovers. The Vikings went 0-for-2 on fourth downs, whereas the Bears converted their one 4th & 10 (?) attempt and gained 5.1 expected points in the process. The Vikings were 2-for-9 converting third downs, with the only two conversions coming on 3rd & 5 or shorter and well into their own side of the field. The Bears converted nearly half of their third downs, including a 36-yard gain from midfield on 3rd & 10 (+3.4 EPA).
The Vikings made the right decisions on when to go for it on fourth downs, but they didn’t pay off in this game.
Seven of the top-10 most impactful plays by EPA were negative in this game, including five turnovers, a missed field goal and a fourth-down failure. No play had a bigger impact on win probability added than the previous mentioned 3rd & 10 conversion for the Bears on their game-winning field-goal drive, moving win probability to over 70% from around 35% pre-play.
You can pick your Cinderella analogy for how Josh Dobbs fell apart after a good start to his time with the Vikings (Turned into a pumpkin? Slipper no longer fits? The clock struck midnight?). The handwringing, especially from Browns fans and media, around suddenly quarterback-needy teams not having Dobbs on the roster a couple weeks back was way over the top. He’s looked good in stretches, but he also plays a high variance style that can get hot for a few weeks and fool observers, but he was never going to be sustainably good. At 6-6, the Vikings are still holding onto the No. 7 playoff spot about a coin-flip to make the postseason, even with a loss in their easiest remaining game last night.
The Bears mostly won this game in spite of Fields, whose 2.7-yard aDOT was the second for any quarterback this season (teammate Tyson Bagent even lower), and the 15th lowest for any quarterback since 2010. Even with a low-risk gameplan, Fields still made a couple majorly negative plays with irresponsible fumbles (-8.6 EPA).
In theory, Justin Fields is playing to his starting job with the Bears next year. But let’s face it: the Bears are not passing up the chance to draft a top quarterback prospect next spring even if Fields plays like Tom Brady for a few weeks. There’s enough of a sample of poor play from Fields to make using their likely top-2 pick (yeah, Panthers) a necessity, either for the current general manager who didn’t draft Fields, or a new one the Bears bring in this offseason. If anything, wins now for the Bears are enhancing the job security for Ryan Poles and Matt Eberflus more than Fields.
Apologies for this longer missive/diatribe Kevin, but it's at lunch where I have a second, and I really thought about it. And involves one of your (good) opinions.
Results bias in football is striking, and more prevalent than in any other sport, imo, maybe due to sample size. It's been going on forever.
In the last 48 hours we've seen Josh Allen labelled as "not a winner" while leading his team to leads as a road dog twice in the last two drives. And in the OT drive, having a receiver run a wrong route which likely would've been a TD win if not. ESPN analysts are talking about how much "better" Hurts is because he does "win."
Two weeks ago Josh Dobbs - career backup and on his seventh team in seven years - was anointed, while really not playing super well. He had something like 10 TWP's, 6 fumbles, and a PFF grade in the low sixties against NO and Denver. He is who he is, but he won two games. Vikings writers were talking about long term extensions, etc. Now he reverts to his mean - which really wasn't too far off how he played in his two wins - and they all want to bench him.
So, I thought about this, while thinking about your opinion. Fields had a terrible game last night. The Bears defense is really starting to play well. What if they followed your advice and drafted another top QB? They'd be the laughing stock of the NFL if they did that, presuming they drafted Bryce Young over CJ Stroud. The whole lot of them might already be fired.
That's just because of results bias. Your idea was great, imo. If they drafted Stroud they would look like geniuses and the Bears would be a force for possibly years. But drafting Young breeds the bad result. And, because of it, I suspect no team for the next fifty years would follow your advice of using their number one on another QB in the same situation.
Long lunch over. But, you were saved not gtting flamed for a hundred years on twitter, and I guess you can thank the Bears. Because when it comes to results bias, it's powerful in the sport and seems more often than not to end up getting everyone fired.