PDA

View Full Version : Grantland has spoken again! All is lost for the Broncos!


TerrElway
08-10-2012, 02:07 PM
Oh good Lord I'm giving up on the season now! Woe is Denver!

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8254748/peyton-manning-enough-make-denver-contender

Actually, he makes some good points but I am so glad games are actually played and things aren't decided on paper.

Kaylore
08-10-2012, 02:10 PM
Well at least we don't have to waste anyone's time this season by playing the games. What a relief!

SonOfLe-loLang
08-10-2012, 02:13 PM
I thought this article was odd. Entirely too many variables changes from last year to this.

JLesSPE
08-10-2012, 02:15 PM
What the hell is a Pythagorean projection? I'm no statistician, but I'm not seeing how right triangles figure into winning football games.

Irish Stout
08-10-2012, 02:24 PM
If only football was linear and could be plotted out on precise patterns of wins and losses from one year to the next, regardless if there are major changes on the offensive and defensive side of the ball.

If you really want to analyze a team from one year to the next, you need to include a statistical analysis of punts year to year. Now turnovers might have been down, but we had the 2nd most number of punts last year at 101 (St. Louis had 105). This means there were a lot more 3 and outs than most other teams... which means that offensive production wasn't always very high. Which means the Defense was on the field a lot more than was warranted. Which means that Defensive players can wear down quicker.

So if we have an offense that is more capable of converting third downs, we should be more succesful at running out the clock and keeping the defense off the field. If you then add quite a bit of depth to that defense and increase DT and CB strength... you should have a defense that is not going to allow as many points.

Therefore - Grantland blows cashews. America!!!

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2012, 02:32 PM
too long, did not read...

mwill07
08-10-2012, 02:34 PM
What the hell is a Pythagorean projection? I'm no statistician, but I'm not seeing how right triangles figure into winning football games.

it's a way to look at points scored and points scored against, and come up with what a teams record should have been. When you compare the "should have been" record vs what actually happened, you can decide if the team was lucky or just good at winning games they shouldn't have.

I don't think anyone would be surprised at the idea that Denver won some games last year that we shouldn't have.

That being said, the point he's trying to make is that people should think of the Broncos as a 6-10 team, not an 8-8 team. It's probably valid until you consider the source of some of our losses and inability to score points *cough*orton*cough* is no longer on the team.

JLesSPE
08-10-2012, 02:38 PM
it's a way to look at points scored and points scored against, and come up with what a teams record should have been. When you compare the "should have been" record vs what actually happened, you can decide if the team was lucky or just good at winning games they shouldn't have.

I don't think anyone would be surprised at the idea that Denver won some games last year that we shouldn't have.

That being said, the point he's trying to make is that people should think of the Broncos as a 6-10 team, not an 8-8 team. It's probably valid until you consider the source of some of our losses and inability to score points *cough*orton*cough* is no longer on the team.

Yeah I looked it up, I guess it's the Bill James thing from baseball. I think adding one of the greatest QBs ever and possibly the biggest FA in history will allow us to be outliers this year.

jerseyboiler120
08-10-2012, 02:43 PM
it's a way to look at points scored and points scored against, and come up with what a teams record should have been. When you compare the "should have been" record vs what actually happened, you can decide if the team was lucky or just good at winning games they shouldn't have.

I don't think anyone would be surprised at the idea that Denver won some games last year that we shouldn't have.

That being said, the point he's trying to make is that people should think of the Broncos as a 6-10 team, not an 8-8 team. It's probably valid until you consider the source of some of our losses and inability to score points *cough*orton*cough* is no longer on the team.


Sure we won a couple we should have lost perhaps, but the reverse is also true. Game 1 if Orton doesn't fumble that ball in scoring range we score and we win. Game 3 we had the upper hand against the tennessee tuxedos but gave it up at the end. Of course, winning those would have kept orton as the starter and history would be completely different.

2KBack
08-10-2012, 02:50 PM
This is why numbers are fun....with the right variables you can predict anything and have numerical proof to back it up

Kid A
08-10-2012, 03:00 PM
Yeah I looked it up, I guess it's the Bill James thing from baseball. I think adding one of the greatest QBs ever and possibly the biggest FA in history will allow us to be outliers this year.

Yeah. The pythagorean projection is actually pretty damn accurate in predicting the record the next season (Barnwell cites it in nearly every NFL article he writes, including this even harsher take down of the 49ers chances in 2012: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8237657/san-francisco-repeat-last-season-greatness).

I think his main points that the team was statistically lucky to be 8-8, has a thin front 7, inexperience on offense, etc are agreed upon by most Maners. And he does seem to respect the Manning factor (putting us in the 9-7 range).

I do think he overrates the o-line and WRs Manning had in Indy, though, considering how harshly he criticizes Denver's units. And I'm more bullish on the secondary additions. Plus the preseason projections of schedule difficulty (which is his big closing argument) have been discounted again and again as never really carrying over year to year.

Still, I prefer Barnwell's approach to predictions over most national pundits going off gut feelings. Personally I hold out a lot of hope due to the progress I expect on defense and Manning elevating the o-line and WR play. Looking forward to finding out, though.

Stuck in Cali
08-10-2012, 03:09 PM
I hope more will say we can't or will not win games. Better to be counted out in my opinion. Some people thrive on proving people right, others by proving people wrong. I am generalizing here, just seems to me football players play better when people/media predict them to lose, or not be good. I know the media has been spot on before at times. But that's why they play the games, hope everyone in the nation wants us to fall on our face and says so. I feel we have a different mentality with this team and will make a lot of people eat crow.

pricejj
08-10-2012, 03:34 PM
Yeah. The pythagorean projection is actually pretty damn accurate in predicting the record the next season. [/url]).


Except for the fact that the Broncos only scored 19.3 ppg in 2011, which is statistically worse than Manning's Offense scored during his 3-13 rookie year in 1998 (19.4 ppg). The Colts have only scored less than 25 ppg three times in Manning's 15 year career. In 1998, in 2002 (21.8 ppg), and in 2008 (23.6 ppg, the year Marvin Harrison was hurt and retired).

Judging by past history, if the Broncos Offense is able to score at least 25 ppg in 2012, they will likely rank in the top 7 in the NFL. With minor improvement (and with Peyton Manning on Offense), the Defense could easily be middle of the pack in points scored against (Fox and Del Rio want a top 10 ranking).

The only valid concern is the strength of schedule. This team has to come out of the gate strong, and they know it. The first game is against the Steelers @ Mile High. We beat 'em last year, their starting rookie LT Adams played awful in the 1st preseason game, and Mike Wallace is in a contract dispute. I like our chances.

Agamemnon
08-10-2012, 03:46 PM
After how well-coached our defense looked in the first preseason game I'm actually starting to wonder about my original take regarding this team's chances (which was definitely on the less optimistic side). I mean there's still definite talent issues there, but being fundamentally sound and well-coached can make up for a lot. Obviously one preseason game doesn't mean much, but I'm still a bit more optimistic about this team's chances than I was before it. Del Rio may really be huge for us.

And really, going off point differential from last season to this one is just silly. Manning will produce more points than a run every down offense with an erratic Tebow under center (even a Tebow fan knows that). As far as analysis goes, it doesn't hold much water.

UberBroncoMan
08-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Yeah this guy is a ****ing idiot.

• Kurt Warner was an average quarterback for his first two seasons with the Cardinals before breaking out in his third year. It's also worth noting that, thanks to his late start in football, Warner had absorbed way fewer NFL hits than Manning had, something that helped him stay healthier during the final three years of his career.

Career Games Started for Manning: 208
Career Sacks on Manning: 231

Career Games Started for Warner: 116
Career Sacks on Warner: 260

This doesn't count playoffs. But regardless. LUL!

cutthemdown
08-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Funny because I think the Broncos secondary will be really good. @ young players in Moore and Carter learning and getting better. Bailey one of those freaks that comes along once a decade at most. He will play well every yr until he retires. Porter had a few injury bugs but nothing big, nothing that says he can't stay healthy and contribute. Harris is young and getting better plus they brought a vet insurance policy in Florence.

Houshyamama
08-10-2012, 08:53 PM
Meh, who gives a **** what this ****** thinks?

enjolras
08-10-2012, 08:56 PM
I have two issues after reading about 10 paragraphs:

1. When everyone tosses the Montana comparison around, they conveniently leave out where the Chiefs season actually ended that first season.

2. They are making a strange assumption that Tebow was the key factor in those victories, and that it wasn't the rest of the team stepping up to make up for those defencies at QB. Outside of the Vikings game in the regular season, I'm not sure you can make that case with a straight face. The defense was chiefly responsible for at least 6 of those wins.

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Yeah. The pythagorean projection is actually pretty damn accurate in predicting the record the next season (Barnwell cites it in nearly every NFL article he writes, including this even harsher take down of the 49ers chances in 2012: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8237657/san-francisco-repeat-last-season-greatness).

I think his main points that the team was statistically lucky to be 8-8, has a thin front 7, inexperience on offense, etc are agreed upon by most Maners. And he does seem to respect the Manning factor (putting us in the 9-7 range).

I do think he overrates the o-line and WRs Manning had in Indy, though, considering how harshly he criticizes Denver's units. And I'm more bullish on the secondary additions. Plus the preseason projections of schedule difficulty (which is his big closing argument) have been discounted again and again as never really carrying over year to year.

Still, I prefer Barnwell's approach to predictions over most national pundits going off gut feelings. Personally I hold out a lot of hope due to the progress I expect on defense and Manning elevating the o-line and WR play. Looking forward to finding out, though.

I'm not buying the pythag crap. The Broncos are a very different team from last year, a totally different QB with a totally different offense than what Tebow ran. Yah, the Broncos lucked out on some of those wins last year but to say "based on last years numbers and putting them into this equation the team's chances for not doing well are ____" does not work IF the team runs a different offense.

It does not compute, sorry.

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2012, 09:36 PM
Also, what grantland forgets is that the Broncos basically ran two totally different offenses last year so part of the year they ran a pro style offense and part of the year they ran a spread option offense. Again, the variables are so much different that you can't just plug and play with the Broncos numbers when it comes to the pythag stuff.

Sorry, just does not compute. Last year was a wierd year for the Broncos so to use a system that does not take those issues into account is flawed IMHO.