Conventional NFL wisdom says teams should do whatever it takes to snag a Franchise Quarterback™ — that from there, the winning just takes care of itself. But for most of Philip Rivers’s career, his Los Angeles (née San Diego) Chargers have been the exception to that rule. Taken fourth overall in the 2004 draft, Rivers has been the elite passer that teams dream about building around. And yet, his team has just four total playoff wins to show for it, including only one this decade.

This year, though, Los Angeles looks poised to reverse that trend and actually capitalize on having a future Hall of Fame QB in its midst, while there’s still time left in Rivers’s career to do it. The Chargers walloped the Browns 38-14 in Cleveland last Sunday, bringing their record to 4-2 on the season — and giving them a 61 percent probability of making their first playoff appearance since 2013. Although L.A.’s postseason bid is far from assured, right now the Chargers have set themselves up with their most promising start to a season in a long time.

This Charger renaissance has been building for a few years, since the team finally began surrounding Rivers again with better playmakers on both sides of the ball. On defense, that goes back to 2012, when former general manager A.J. Smith drafted pass-rusher Melvin Ingram 18th overall. After a slow start to his career, Ingram has blossomed into a Pro Bowler and an annual double-digit sack candidate. Under Smith’s successor, Tom Telesco, the Chargers have also grabbed several defensive contributors through the draft, including sack-machine DE Joey Bosa, solid LB Denzel Perryman, up-and-coming CB Desmond King II and rookie S Derwin James (who, in his first season, already ranks as the NFL’s fifth-best safety according to ProFootballFocus’s player grades). Toss in outside pickups such as DT Brandon Mebane and CB Casey Hayward — another Pro Bowler from last season — plus the guidance of proven coordinator Gus Bradley, and the Chargers’ defensive talent base has undeniably made strides over the past handful of seasons.

On offense, Telesco also made key acquisitions that helped pave the way for this year’s hot start when he took WR Keenan Allen in the third round of the 2013 draft and RB Melvin Gordon 15th overall in 2015. Picking first-round running backs is always tricky business, but Gordon has been a good one so far in his career, with a couple of 1,400-yards-from-scrimmage seasons under his belt (in 2016 and 2017) and an excellent start to 2018 as well. Meanwhile, Allen has taken the lead from top San Diego-era targets Malcom Floyd and Antonio Gates and forged his own chemistry with Rivers — only four receivers leaguewide have more yards through the air since 2017 than Allen does. (It also helps that Allen has stayed healthy these past two seasons after missing 23 combined games in 2015-16.) Allen and Gordon aren’t the only teammates making Rivers’s life easier: The offensive line has been much better with free-agent C Mike Pouncey anchoring the middle, while change-of-pace RB Austin Ekeler has proven himself exceptionally tough to bring down — he leads all RBs in yards after first contact per rush. More broadly, in its second year under head coach Anthony Lynn, Los Angeles now has the offensive pieces to beat teams in multiple ways.

Add it all up and it’s clear that Rivers, who turns 37 in December, has a much better group of talent around him to work with than in years past. Here’s a look at the changes in Rivers’s own production over time — as measured by his Yards Above Backup Quarterback (YABQ) — along with how his top skill-position teammates and defense have also evolved:

Philip Rivers is great again — and he has help Los Angeles Chargers’ production from quarterback Philip Rivers and his supporting cast, 2006-2018 Season Rivers YABQ/G Top RB YdSc/G Top Rec. YdSC/G Team Def. efficiency 2018 99.2 M. Gordon 124.2 K. Allen 80.0 54.9 2017 75.1 M. Gordon 98.8 K. Allen 87.6 63.0 2016 31.8 M. Gordon 88.5 T. Williams 66.2 51.1 2015 48.3 D. Woodhead 68.2 K. Allen 45.3 38.6 2014 45.7 B. Oliver 53.3 M. Floyd 53.5 42.8 2013 79.6 R. Mathews 90.3 K. Allen 65.4 32.2 2012 -3.9 R. Mathews 59.9 M. Floyd 50.9 55.4 2011 48.0 R. Mathews 96.6 V. Jackson 72.3 33.2 2010 77.1 M. Tolbert 59.4 A. Gates 48.9 64.3 2009 97.0 L. Tomlinson 55.3 V. Jackson 73.6 46.4 2008 86.5 L. Tomlinson 96.0 V. Jackson 72.9 38.7 2007 26.4 L. Tomlinson 121.8 A. Gates 61.5 62.6 2006 58.5 L. Tomlinson 145.2 A. Gates 57.8 61.1 Per-game measures are relative to team schedule lengths, not individual games played. YABQ: Yards Above Backup Quarterback, a measure of QB performance that gives credit for passing and rushing, and adjusts for strength of schedule. YDSC: yards from scrimmage, or rushing yards plus receiving yards. Defensive efficiency: ESPN’s measure of a defense’s per-play effectiveness on a 0-100 scale. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group, pro-Football-Reference.com

It probably isn’t a coincidence that Rivers is currently enjoying his best statistical performance in years, with Gordon and Allen also contributing more than any Charger rusher and receiver since the days of LaDainian Tomlinson and Vincent Jackson. It’s a little circular, in that sense: Is Rivers making them better, or are they helping Rivers rediscover his form? (Gordon’s ability to run against stacked defenses, for instance, has opened up space for Rivers to throw downfield.) Either way, the ingredients have been in place for a late-career QB rejuvenation. Right now, Rivers is on pace to tie for the ninth-most-efficient post-merger performance for a passer age 35 or older, according to Pro-Football-Reference.com’s advanced passing index. As far as old-man QB seasons go, this is one of the best in history.

Of course, with the Chargers, it’s about more than just improved talent. It’s also about execution, something this team has often been found sorely lacking over the years. As Mike Tanier wrote in his L.A. chapter for Football Outsiders’ 2018 Almanac, you could make a pretty convincing case that the 2017 Chargers missed the playoffs because of two very fundamental football activities: tackling and kicking. Last year, Los Angeles let opponents break tackles at an incredible rate and missed numerous field goals and extra points, helping to turn a team with 10-and-a-half-win point differential into a sad-sack nine-game-winner.

This year’s place-kicking game hasn’t been great (Caleb Sturgis made just 71 percent of his total field goals and extra points before he was sidelined by an injury), but it’s no longer dead-last in football, which I suppose is an accomplishment. Plus, the Chargers rank among the best in the league in terms of kickoffs, a big reason for their fourth-ranked net starting field position. And as for the tackling woes, they appear to be a thing of the past. According to Football Outsiders’ charting data, only 3.9 percent of plays by Charger opponents have seen a broken tackle, good for 10th best in the league this year. Relatedly, the Chargers are also allowing the league’s sixth-lowest rate of yards after first contact per rush this season, another major sign of defensive progress as compared with last season.

The Chargers must have practiced their tackling Los Angeles Chargers’ defensive performance and league ranking in preventing opponents from breaking tackles or gaining yards after contact Year Broken tackles/play NFL Rank Opponents’ yards after 1st contact/rush NFL Rank 2018 3.9% 10 1.56 6 2017 13.3 31 2.31 32 Source: Football Outsiders, ESPN Stats & Information Group

Los Angeles will put its improved talent and newfound execution on display in London on Sunday, for a game against the Tennessee Titans that ranks among the best of Week 7 in terms of both matchup quality (i.e., the harmonic mean of the two teams’ Elo ratings in each game) and how much it figures to swing either team’s odds of making the playoffs:

The best matchups of Week 7 Week 7 games by the highest average Elo rating (using the harmonic mean) plus the total potential swing for the two teams’ playoff chances, according to FiveThirtyEight’s NFL predictions Playoff % Playoff % Team A Current Avg. Chg* Team B Current Avg. Chg* Total Change Game Quality CAR 43.4% ±12.8 PHI 64.2% ±12.2 25.0 1586 LAC 60.6 14.6 TEN 41.3 12.6 27.2 1524 WSH 38.8 16.3 DAL 40.2 16.2 32.6 1517 BAL 68.7 11.5 NO 72.2 9.7 21.1 1605 CHI 43.0 12.2 NE 78.4 9.0 21.3 1560 CIN 49.6 11.2 KC 95.8 3.6 14.8 1575 JAX 46.7 13.8 HOU 23.6 12.9 26.7 1470 MIA 42.8 12.6 DET 24.3 9.8 22.4 1496 MIN 57.0 13.4 NYJ 14.7 7.1 20.5 1513 LAR 95.8 3.3 SF 3.1 2.8 6.1 1512 ATL 27.7 6.5 NYG 1.2 1.0 7.5 1454 BUF 10.2 5.7 IND 4.1 2.3 8.0 1417 DEN 3.8 2.6 ARI 1.4 0.8 3.4 1418 TB 20.7 5.6 CLE 1.1 1.0 6.6 1394 Game quality is the harmonic mean of the Elo ratings for the two teams in a given matchup. *Average change is weighted by the likelihood of a win or loss. (Ties are excluded.) Source: ESPN.com

For the Chargers, it’s part of a long road trip that will keep them away from Southern California until Nov. 18. The StubHub Center doesn’t exactly offer an intimidating advantage even when they are at home, but it does bear watching how L.A. manages all that travel. Even so, the Chargers’ season will still probably hinge on the final few matchups of the season — their last five games are either against division rivals or the biggest threats to their wild-card chances. If Rivers and his improved supporting cast can continue to thrive up to and including the month of December, we’ll know the Chargers have stamped their ticket back to the postseason and given their star QB at least one more chance to shine on the game’s brightest stage.

FiveThirtyEight vs. the readers

Attention football fans! Be sure to check out our constantly updating NFL prediction interactive, which uses FiveThirtyEight’s Elo ratings to forecast the rest of the season. And if you think you can outsmart Elo, step right up to our prediction game, which lets you pick against our model (and your fellow readers) for bragging rights and a place on our giant leaderboard.

Here are the games where Elo made its best — and worst — predictions against the field of prognosticators last week:

Elo’s dumbest (and smartest) picks of Week 6 Average difference between points won by readers and by Elo in Week 6 matchups in FiveThirtyEight’s NFL prediction game OUR PREDICTION (ELO) READERS’ PREDICTION PICK WIN PROB. PICK WIN PROB. Result READERS’ NET PTS BUF 52% HOU 60% HOU 20, BUF 13 +9.4 – TEN 53 BAL 54 BAL 21, TEN 0 +4.8 – GB 66 GB 75 GB 33, SF 30 +3.3 – LAR 69 LAR 75 LAR 23, DEN 20 +1.2 – CIN 54 CIN 51 PIT 28, CIN 21 +1.2 – MIN 74 MIN 79 MIN 27, ARI 17 +0.9 – ATL 67 ATL 64 ATL 34, TB 29 -3.9 – SEA 67 SEA 63 SEA 27, OAK 3 -4.4 – CAR 55 CAR 58 WSH 23, CAR 17 -5.3 – PHI 71 PHI 66 PHI 34, NYG 13 -5.4 – NE 54 NE 50 NE 43, KC 40 -6.2 – LAC 69 LAC 60 LAC 38, CLE 14 -9.1 – NYJ 67 NYJ 57 NYJ 42, IND 34 -9.9 – MIA 54 CHI 59 MIA 31, CHI 28 -15.4 – DAL 53 JAX 60 DAL 40, JAX 7 -16.2 – Home teams are in bold. The scoring system is nonlinear, so readers’ average points don’t necessarily match the number of points that would be given to the average reader prediction.

What’s been a great season for Elo kept getting better in Week 6 as the algorithm beat the average reader by 55 points, its second-best showing of the entire year so far. Human predictors really only had one major feather in their cap — Houston’s Nathan Peterman-fueled win over Buffalo (a very bad team whose badness Elo refuses to acknowledge) — but otherwise they saw Elo run roughshod over their picks. Elo correctly called wins for Dallas and Miami when readers picked otherwise, and it had a lot more confidence than readers in the Jets’ and Chargers’ victories as well. All told, the average reader is now down 233 points to Elo for the season to date.

Among the readers who weren’t destroyed by Elo, congrats to John D. Harden, who led all users with 275 points in Week 6, and to Jevon Mallett, who continues to lead all users for the season with 453 points. Thanks to everyone who played last week — and if you didn’t play, get in on the game already! You can make picks now and still try your luck against Elo, even if you haven’t played yet.

Check out our latest NFL predictions.