PDA

View Full Version : Settling Last Years O's Stat Debate


frerottenextelway
03-18-2009, 03:29 PM
This comes up frequently here, where one side will point out our O was "very good" because we ranked 2nd in yards - the other side will say we were ''mediocre'' because we were 16th in points.

I think/hope we can all agree that how many times you have the ball, and where you start from are numbers out of the O's hands that affect the totals.

So...

Broken down per drive (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats):

Offense
YDs/Drive (1) 38.6
Points/Drive (9) 2.16
Starting F/P (32) 25.85
Possessions (30) 10.25

So, we can see that we finished 9th in scoring Offense despite having the absolute worst starting field position in the league. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, but our Offense was very, very good.

On the flip side...

Defense
YDs/Drive (31) 36.86
Points/Drive (31) 2.58
Starting F/P (16) 30.20
Possessions (31) 10.1

On Defense we can see they were left in pretty good shape, the fewest possessions in the league to defend against and the in middle of the pack from where they started from. With that, the only team with a worse Defense did not win a game.

Triplelefthook
03-18-2009, 03:43 PM
excellent stuff, gus

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 03:48 PM
What about the fact that the offense turned the ball over the 8th most times in the league? That despite have so few possessions.

BABronco
03-18-2009, 03:49 PM
rep!

scttgrd
03-18-2009, 03:51 PM
Just like the other Cutler thread, this one will be ignored by the "experts" who know better, in thier own minds. This dosen't help the argument for McDaniels desire to blow up the offense.

OABB
03-18-2009, 03:52 PM
What about the fact that the offense turned the ball over the 8th most times in the league? That despite have so few possessions.

that could have something to do with the seven rb's on IR...just a thought. I wonder how Our O did when we had a 100 yard rusher. anyone?

scttgrd
03-18-2009, 03:52 PM
What about the fact that the offense turned the ball over the 8th most times in the league? That despite have so few possessions.

How about the fewest turnovers by the defense, see we can do this all day.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 03:53 PM
that could have something to do with the seven rb's on IR...just a thought. I wonder how Our O did when we had a 100 yard rusher. anyone?

Look, if you guys want to make excuses for these guys like they were some juggernaut, go ahead. The fact is they didn't score enough and turned it over too frequently. There is plenty of room for improvement.

OABB
03-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Look, if you guys want to make excuses for these guys like they were some juggernaut, go ahead. The fact is they didn't score enough and turned it over too frequently. There is plenty of room for improvement.

having no running game is more than an excuse. An excuse would be Jay's diabeetus, or that he was young, or that he tried too hard to win games. Having 7 RB"S ON IR is a legitimate problem that would hurt the o. finishing 9th isn't bad considering.

broncofan7
03-18-2009, 03:56 PM
The offense needed fine tuning--NOT a lobotomy! The defense /ST's needed the overhaul--instead we are overhauling EVERYTHING!. Disgusting.

lazarus4444
03-18-2009, 03:57 PM
wahhhhh wahhhhhhh ^^

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 03:58 PM
The offense needed fine tuning--NOT a lobotomy! The defense /ST's needed the overhaul--instead we are overhauling EVERYTHING!. Disgusting.

Will someone please explain to me how we are overhauling the offense? As of this posting, every significant skill player from last season is still on the squad, plus the additions of Gaffney and the RBs. The offensive line is still in tact. How the hell does this constitute an overhaul?

scttgrd
03-18-2009, 04:02 PM
Who is the leader on the offense? Who handles the ball on every offensive play, besides the center.

broncofan7
03-18-2009, 04:05 PM
Will someone please explain to me how we are overhauling the offense? As of this posting, every significant skill player from last season is still on the squad, plus the additions of Gaffney and the RBs. The offensive line is still in tact. How the hell does this constitute an overhaul?

McD is installing his OWN, NEW OFFENSIVE SYSTEM! and here are two more tips for you: stop sniffing glue and fire is hot

broncofan7
03-18-2009, 04:06 PM
Who is the leader on the offense? Who handles the ball on every offensive play, besides the center.

Chris Simms? LOL

skpac1001
03-18-2009, 04:19 PM
McD is installing his OWN, NEW OFFENSIVE SYSTEM! and here are two more tips for you: stop sniffing glue and fire is hot

Just so we understand each other, you spend half your time bemoaning our previous coaches defense and special teams, and the other half complaining about a new coach being brought in who will install the very offense we were copying last year, while retaining the best members of our offensive coaching staff and who is currently trying to get our qb to play for us? Have I captured it, or no?
As far as I can tell, the only changes McDaniels has actually made on the offense is bringing in more competition at rb (which everyone who complains about the running game should want) and has cut or considered trading injury prone players (Scheffler and Nate Jackson).

OABB
03-18-2009, 04:21 PM
anyone know how we did scoring wise in games where we had a 100 yard rusher?

frerottenextelway
03-18-2009, 04:28 PM
What about the fact that the offense turned the ball over the 8th most times in the league? That despite have so few possessions.

Definitely something that needs to be improved upon! Especially the fumbles, those got out of hand. The INTs need to be improved upon too, although we were in positions where balls had to be forced way too much because we were always playing catch up.

broncofan7
03-18-2009, 04:36 PM
Just so we understand each other, you spend half your time bemoaning our previous coaches defense and special teams, and the other half complaining about a new coach being brought in who will install the very offense we were copying last year, while retaining the best members of our offensive coaching staff and who is currently trying to get our qb to play for us? Have I captured it, or no?
As far as I can tell, the only changes McDaniels has actually made on the offense is bringing in more competition at rb (which everyone who complains about the running game should want) and has cut or considered trading injury prone players (Scheffler and Nate Jackson).


It was time for Shanny to go. I wanted us to hire Spags and to keep most (including Bates) of our offensive staff. I was not too keen on the hiring of McD and the sh*tstorm that has occurred since his hiring does not exactly lend itself to a promise of better days in the near future.

Losing Cutler as well would IN FACT, mean a complete overhaul of our OFFENSE , defense and special teams, and just in case you haven't heard, McD and our talented, yet petulant QB are not exactly seeing eye to eye.

richpjr
03-18-2009, 04:50 PM
having no running game is more than an excuse. An excuse would be Jay's diabeetus, or that he was young, or that he tried too hard to win games. Having 7 RB"S ON IR is a legitimate problem that would hurt the o. finishing 9th isn't bad considering.

And despite having 7 RB's on IR, the Broncos still finished 12th in the league in rushing yards per game and 2nd in the league in yards per carry, which is completely contrary to the Jay has to carry the entire offense argument.

boltaneer
03-18-2009, 04:58 PM
I wonder how many points were scored and yards were gained by Denver in garbage time against prevent defenses.

I know every team's offense gets to pad their stats like this on occasion but it seems to be Denver was in that position quite a bit last year.

broncofan7
03-18-2009, 04:59 PM
And despite having 7 RB's on IR, the Broncos still finished 12th in the league in rushing yards per game and 2nd in the league in yards per carry, which is completely contrary to the Jay has to carry the entire offense argument.

It's not contrary. If you followed us CLOSELY last season you will understand why those stats are inflated. We were behind or having to score points so often last year that teams were gearing up to stop Jay and the passing attack thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to our running attack. Remember our our season finale? Tatum had his best game in 2 years because the chuggers were so focused on stopping Jay & Brandon. Our running game has no presence to it.

frerottenextelway
03-18-2009, 05:00 PM
I wonder how many points were scored and yards were gained by Denver in garbage time against prevent defenses.

I know every team's offense gets to pad their stats like this on occasion but it seems to be Denver was in that position quite a bit last year.

I think you'd find Denver's garbage time stats to be quite poor. For example, this would would be where you'd find a large chunk of Cutler's interceptions.

skpac1001
03-18-2009, 05:01 PM
I wonder how many points were scored and yards were gained by Denver in garbage time against prevent defenses.

I know every team's offense gets to pad their stats like this on occasion but it seems to be Denver was in that position quite a bit last year.

It ruins our "elite" offense label when you look at who we scored points against. Our scoring against the two top 10 defenses we faced did not remind anyone of the Colts, and other then that, it was pretty much a steady succession of defenses ranked 23rd or worse.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:04 PM
I wonder how many points were scored and yards were gained by Denver in garbage time against prevent defenses.

I know every team's offense gets to pad their stats like this on occasion but it seems to be Denver was in that position quite a bit last year.

Denver's record: 8-8
SD's record: 8-8

.................

TonyR
03-18-2009, 05:06 PM
Just so we understand each other, you spend half your time bemoaning our previous coaches defense and special teams, and the other half complaining about a new coach being brought in who will install the very offense we were copying last year, while retaining the best members of our offensive coaching staff and who is currently trying to get our qb to play for us? Have I captured it, or no?
As far as I can tell, the only changes McDaniels has actually made on the offense is bringing in more competition at rb (which everyone who complains about the running game should want) and has cut or considered trading injury prone players (Scheffler and Nate Jackson).

Good post.

Yes, I'm certain McD's objective is to make the offense worse. He knows nothing about offense. What the Pats did 2 seasons ago was an aberration and what they did without Brady last year was a fluke.

And oh, by the way, until further notice Jay Cutler is still our starting QB.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:16 PM
Good post.

Yes, I'm certain McD's objective is to make the offense worse. He knows nothing about offense. What the Pats did 2 seasons ago was an aberration and what they did without Brady last year was a fluke.

And oh, by the way, until further notice Jay Cutler is still our starting QB.

That's irrelevant. Players make the coaches look good.

Ask the previous "Scoring Record King" Brian Billick about how easy it was to find and groom a QB.

Or maybe Steve Mariucci before him?

John Gruden?

Should we go all day?

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 05:29 PM
That's irrelevant. Players make the coaches look good.

Ask the previous "Scoring Record King" Brian Billick about how easy it was to find and groom a QB.

Or maybe Steve Mariucci before him?

John Gruden?

Should we go all day?

You aren't wrong, but that is precisely what makes McDaniels so intriguing. He lost his marquee quarterback, plugged in a guy who had not taken a meaningful snap since high school, and still produced a top notch offense.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:30 PM
You aren't wrong, but that is precisely what makes McDaniels so intriguing. He lost his marquee quarterback, plugged in a guy who had not taken a meaningful snap since the late 90s, and still produced a top notch offense.

You could take Cunningham out of Minnesota and insert Daunte and no problem too.

Supporting casts matter.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:30 PM
In that same note, every backup that's replaced McNabb has produced just as well as he has.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 05:34 PM
You could take Cunningham out of Minnesota and insert Daunte and no problem too.

Supporting casts matter.

This is true as well. But I'd says systems are equally as important. Would Welker be an All-Pro WR if he were still in Miami? Where would Randy Moss be right now had he not hooked up with the Pats and McDaniels offense? A lot of people thought he was finished. Players are important, but so are systems that make use of the available talent.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 05:35 PM
In that same note, every backup that's replaced McNabb has produced just as well as he has.

Which actually would indicate a heavy importance on the system since Philly over the years has been about average in terms of overall offensive talent. Their receivers have been mediocre for years.

Rock Chalk
03-18-2009, 05:37 PM
No running game? I keep hearing that bull****.

Denver had the 4th best efficiency in the run game last year, period. In fact, our running game was more efficient than our passing game.

Cutler suffered from a stupid ass Jeremy Bates who passed over 2:1 to run and NEVER ONCE ran the bal more than he passed. He wanted to get Cutler yards yards yards which turned into turnovers turnovers turnovers.

The fact that every one of the running backs averaged 4.0+ ypc is lost on you idiots. By every measure Denver had a top running game last year but Bates was too stupid to use it. When one went down, the next one stepped up and performed.

Not Cutler's fault. What is his fault and entirely his fault was being careless with the ball. He threw 18 picks and by my estimation at least another 12 more that would have been picks if the defenders knew how to catch. Thats realistically 30 passes that were HORRENDOUS decisions.

His turnover ratio in the red zone was the highest in the league and its not even close.

You people want to keep fondling Cutler like he is great. He isnt. He's at best an average QB right now with potential still, but thats all it is at this point. So you take a decent QB with potential, add in a piss poor attitude, a sulking nature, diabetes and you get someone you should probably trade in before he has absolutely no value whatsoever.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:40 PM
This is true as well. But I'd says systems are equally as important. Would Welker be an All-Pro WR if he were still in Miami? Where would Randy Moss be right now had he not hooked up with the Pats and McDaniels offense? A lot of people thought he was finished. Players are important, but so are systems that make use of the available talent.

Randy Moss has shown to be a game breaker in a different location and system. Even before Oakland completely blew up when he was literally the only football player on the offense, he started that season swinging.

Welker would still be an All-Pro take dump passes with Randy Moss drawing coverage, yeah.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 05:41 PM
Which actually would indicate a heavy importance on the system since Philly over the years has been about average in terms of overall offensive talent. Their receivers have been mediocre for years.

Really?

Screens to Westbrook and slants isn't much of a system, imo.

summerdenver
03-18-2009, 06:19 PM
This comes up frequently here, where one side will point out our O was "very good" because we ranked 2nd in yards - the other side will say we were ''mediocre'' because we were 16th in points.

I think/hope we can all agree that how many times you have the ball, and where you start from are numbers out of the O's hands that affect the totals.

So...

Broken down per drive (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats):

Offense
YDs/Drive (1) 38.6
Points/Drive (9) 2.16
Starting F/P (32) 25.85
Possessions (30) 10.25

So, we can see that we finished 9th in scoring Offense despite having the absolute worst starting field position in the league. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, but our Offense was very, very good.

On the flip side...

Defense
YDs/Drive (31) 36.86
Points/Drive (31) 2.58
Starting F/P (16) 30.20
Possessions (31) 10.1

On Defense we can see they were left in pretty good shape, the fewest possessions in the league to defend against and the in middle of the pack from where they started from. With that, the only team with a worse Defense did not win a game.

The thing that stands out to me is possessions per game. I am assuming that we ranked 30th from above. Do you know what are the possessions per game stats for 1st and 10th ranked teams?

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 06:24 PM
Who is the leader on the offense? Who handles the ball on every offensive play, besides the center.

According to this, who throws more INTs per drive than all but 3 other NFL QBs?

summerdenver
03-18-2009, 06:26 PM
No running game? I keep hearing that bull****.

Denver had the 4th best efficiency in the run game last year, period. In fact, our running game was more efficient than our passing game.

Cutler suffered from a stupid ass Jeremy Bates who passed over 2:1 to run and NEVER ONCE ran the bal more than he passed. He wanted to get Cutler yards yards yards which turned into turnovers turnovers turnovers.

The fact that every one of the running backs averaged 4.0+ ypc is lost on you idiots. By every measure Denver had a top running game last year but Bates was too stupid to use it. When one went down, the next one stepped up and performed.

Not Cutler's fault. What is his fault and entirely his fault was being careless with the ball. He threw 18 picks and by my estimation at least another 12 more that would have been picks if the defenders knew how to catch. Thats realistically 30 passes that were HORRENDOUS decisions.

His turnover ratio in the red zone was the highest in the league and its not even close.

You people want to keep fondling Cutler like he is great. He isnt. He's at best an average QB right now with potential still, but thats all it is at this point. So you take a decent QB with potential, add in a piss poor attitude, a sulking nature, diabetes and you get someone you should probably trade in before he has absolutely no value whatsoever.


I will say only one thing against this. In most of the games I have seen, cutler's presence opened up the run game. Most of our productive runs were against nickel packages, where teams were trying to stop Culter and our 3 WR. Cutler's arm forced safeties deep more often than not and helped out other aspects of the offense.

Jay's problems for the most part stem from his tendency to put too much pressure on himself instead of letting the game come to him. When defense played decent, he has rarely threw a bad pass (actually the only such pass i remember is the interception in NYJ game)

frerottenextelway
03-18-2009, 06:30 PM
The thing that stands out to me is possessions per game. I am assuming that we ranked 30th from above. Do you know what are the possessions per game stats for 1st and 10th ranked teams?

1.) Chicago 12.4
10t.) Dal/Car 11.5
30.) Denver 10.25

Fwiw, these are from footballoutsiders that excluded kneeldowns at the end of the half/game (doesn't change the overall rankings, but it will make everyone slightly less).

You can see the whole thing here (i just divided the total possessions by 16):

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

mwill07
03-18-2009, 06:31 PM
Jay's problems for the most part stem from his tendency to put too much pressure on himself instead of letting the game come to him. When defense played decent, he has rarely threw a bad pass (actually the only such pass i remember is the interception in NYJ game)

I'd bet the same could be said for almost every QB in the league.

frerottenextelway
03-18-2009, 06:33 PM
According to this, who throws more INTs per drive than all but 3 other NFL QBs?

That's true, he also has more pass attempts than all others per drive too. Jay needs to cut down the turnovers, but his int per attempt isn't out of whack.

summerdenver
03-18-2009, 06:38 PM
I'd bet the same could be said for almost every QB in the league.

I diasgree, most are limited by abilities - Chad Pennington lack of arm strength, Kyle Boller - Brady Quinn accuracy, VY inability to process info quickly, David Carr lack of pocket presence, Leftwicth slower release so on ....


Most underrated part of Jay's game is his accuracy. There are lot of strong armed QBs but very few who are as accurate as Jay. The only problem with Jay, IMO, is he played like he has to score every time we had ball and that is not possible especially if the opp know it. FWIW, we were #1 ranked off in FO stats till very late. Two bad games for offense against Car and SD pushed us down to 5(?). Oh we also had 32nd ranked ST and 31st Def.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 06:38 PM
That's irrelevant. Players make the coaches look good.

Ask the previous "Scoring Record King" Brian Billick about how easy it was to find and groom a QB.

Or maybe Steve Mariucci before him?

John Gruden?

Should we go all day?The Brian Billick who won the SB? That Guy? With the worst QB ever to win a title.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 06:40 PM
Jay needs to cut down the turnovers.
SSSSHHHH, Jay migh hear you and get mad.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 06:41 PM
The Brian Billick who won the SB? That Guy? With the worst QB ever to win a title.

Really?

You're going to make the claim that Billick&Trent Dilfer was a smashing success?

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Rigs11
03-18-2009, 06:50 PM
Who is the leader on the offense? Who handles the ball on every offensive play, besides the center.

Well cutler handled the ball. As for the leader part he didn't handle shet

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 06:53 PM
Randy Moss has shown to be a game breaker in a different location and system. Even before Oakland completely blew up when he was literally the only football player on the offense, he started that season swinging.

Welker would still be an All-Pro take dump passes with Randy Moss drawing coverage, yeah.You've just refuted your our point. Moss was the same player in all 3 places, but was completely ineffective without a good system around him.

thumpc
03-18-2009, 06:54 PM
Look, if you guys want to make excuses for these guys like they were some juggernaut, go ahead. The fact is they didn't score enough and turned it over too frequently. There is plenty of room for improvement.
Yeah, they can only go up from there.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 06:54 PM
Really?

You're going to make the claim that Billick&Trent Dilfer was a smashing success?

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!Did they win a SB?

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 06:58 PM
You've just refuted your our point. Moss was the same player in all 3 places, but was completely ineffective without a good system around him.

...or players...

you've just refuted your own point...

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 06:58 PM
Did they win a SB?

Yes, and as well all know, it was Billick and Dilfers offense blazing the trail!

You win! :spit:

hambone13
03-18-2009, 07:01 PM
You've just refuted your our point. Moss was the same player in all 3 places, but was completely ineffective without a good system around him.

Correction, he was completely ineffective with/o a great QB throwing to him. Culpepper was pretty damn good in his youth. He made Cassell look good last year, Cassell didn't make him look good.....

Inkana7
03-18-2009, 07:02 PM
I wonder how many points were scored and yards were gained by Denver in garbage time against prevent defenses.

I know every team's offense gets to pad their stats like this on occasion but it seems to be Denver was in that position quite a bit last year.

There were what, 3 games we played where the score wasn't within a TD and one of those was Week 1.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 07:04 PM
Really?

Screens to Westbrook and slants isn't much of a system, imo.
Day 1 stupid.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Really?

Screens to Westbrook and slants isn't much of a system, imo.

If that's all there is to it, then why is it so effective without a whole lot of talent (and were talking effectiveness for well before the emergence of Westbrook)?

Anyway, if your argument is that it's all entirely about talent, that's fine. You're wrong, it's both, but that's fine.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 07:07 PM
Correction, he was completely ineffective with/o a great QB throwing to him. Culpepper was pretty damn good in his youth. He made Cassell look good last year, Cassell didn't make him look good.....

This is just blind. Culpepper to Moss was the system in Minn. The day Moss left Culpepper proved to be a nothing. Moss was a nothing in OAK without a system, and the most prolific WR in the league in a good overall system.

You can weigh the importance of system by the fact that Dilfer has a SB ring, and Marino doesn't.

summerdenver
03-18-2009, 07:11 PM
Yes, and as well all know, it was Billick and Dilfers offense blazing the trail!

You win! :spit:

I love your avatar. I see that your cobra is slowly coming to life.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 07:11 PM
If that's all there is to it, then why is it so effective without a whole lot of talent (and were talking effectiveness for well before the emergence of Westbrook)?

Anyway, if your argument is that it's all entirely about talent, that's fine. You're wrong, it's both, but that's fine.

Pre-Westbrook was pre Donovan injury days when he was durable. Also back then, he was a fantastic scrambler if you'll remember. Around 2003 he was a one man offense. Sadly, that's faded.

TheReverend
03-18-2009, 07:12 PM
I love your avatar. I see that your cobra is slowly coming to life.

Apa is a fantastic human.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 07:18 PM
Pre-Westbrook was pre Donovan injury days when he was durable. Also back then, he was a fantastic scrambler if you'll remember. Around 2003 he was a one man offense. Sadly, that's faded.

You aren't seriously trying to argue that a good offensive system is not important to success? Certainly, talent is important as well, but that talent has to be utilized properly. You can use the example of Shanahan producing an offense that scored 473 points in 2000 with Brian Griese and Gus Frerrotte splitting the season, and Mike Anderson toting the rock. Not exactly a murderer's row in terms of talent. Yeah, there was Rod and Eddie Mac, but I'd say that offense clearly played above level of talent thanks to the system in place. I know you don't want to give McDaniels any credit, but producing an elite offense with a guy at QB who had not had a meaningful snap since high school is very impressive, and indicative of an excellent "plug-and-play" system in place. And let's not forgot pre-2007. The Pats offense was pretty mediocre at both WR and running back in 2006, yet they had a top notch offense guided by McDaniels and his system. Certainly, players are important, but to suggest that a good system and good coaching doesn't play a significant role as well is just flat out false.

summerdenver
03-18-2009, 07:19 PM
1.) Chicago 12.4
10t.) Dal/Car 11.5
30.) Denver 10.25

Fwiw, these are from footballoutsiders that excluded kneeldowns at the end of the half/game (doesn't change the overall rankings, but it will make everyone slightly less).

You can see the whole thing here (i just divided the total possessions by 16):

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

Thanks.

If only we were around 10th in number of possessions, we would have had around 1.25 more possessions per game putting us around 7th with 414 points.

BroncoInferno
03-18-2009, 07:21 PM
Pre-Westbrook was pre Donovan injury days when he was durable. Also back then, he was a fantastic scrambler if you'll remember. Around 2003 he was a one man offense. Sadly, that's faded.

Also, your "one-man offense" comment under-cuts your earlier point that McNabb's replacements, from Ty Detmer to Jeff Garcia, have been very effective. Ty Detmer had just about zero talent from a physical perspective...you can't tell me coaching and the surrounding system did not have an impact.

Dedhed
03-18-2009, 07:27 PM
Yes, and as well all know, it was Billick and Dilfers offense blazing the trail!

You win! :spit:

The "system" in Baltimore is defense, genius.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 06:49 AM
This comes up frequently here, where one side will point out our O was "very good" because we ranked 2nd in yards - the other side will say we were ''mediocre'' because we were 16th in points.

I think/hope we can all agree that how many times you have the ball, and where you start from are numbers out of the O's hands that affect the totals.

So...

Broken down per drive (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats):

Offense
YDs/Drive (1) 38.6
Points/Drive (9) 2.16
Starting F/P (32) 25.85
Possessions (30) 10.25

So, we can see that we finished 9th in scoring Offense despite having the absolute worst starting field position in the league. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, but our Offense was very, very good.


As I mentioned in the other thread, an extra 3-4 yards of field position between them and the average teams in the league affected them less than being the 2nd worst team in the league in offensive turnovers. It's not even a debate really.

And with regard to the # of possessions, I'm still waiting on you to address why it wasn't a problem in the first month of the season, when they were averaging 10 possessions per game and scoring 40 pts per game.

we were in positions where balls had to be forced way too much because we were always playing catch up.

I think you'd find Denver's garbage time stats to be quite poor. For example, this would would be where you'd find a large chunk of Cutler's interceptions.

Most of Cutler's turnovers were earlier on in games. His outstanding 4th quarter QB rating that somebody posted here earlier in the week supports that.

Garcia Bronco
03-19-2009, 06:52 AM
This comes up frequently here, where one side will point out our O was "very good" because we ranked 2nd in yards - the other side will say we were ''mediocre'' because we were 16th in points.

I think/hope we can all agree that how many times you have the ball, and where you start from are numbers out of the O's hands that affect the totals.

So...

Broken down per drive (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats):

Offense
YDs/Drive (1) 38.6
Points/Drive (9) 2.16
Starting F/P (32) 25.85
Possessions (30) 10.25

So, we can see that we finished 9th in scoring Offense despite having the absolute worst starting field position in the league. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, but our Offense was very, very good.

On the flip side...

Defense
YDs/Drive (31) 36.86
Points/Drive (31) 2.58
Starting F/P (16) 30.20
Possessions (31) 10.1

On Defense we can see they were left in pretty good shape, the fewest possessions in the league to defend against and the in middle of the pack from where they started from. With that, the only team with a worse Defense did not win a game.


good work

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 07:02 AM
BI, too lazy to do the double reply cut and past so I'll just address your points here.

Yes, the system is important in that it needs to play and adjust to it's players strengths. However, it's downright inescapable to ignore that it's the players who drive the bus.

Occasionally, you get a mind that can take scraps in the entire unit, and turn them into something special (ie: Plummer, Lelie, Old Rod, Putz, Mike Anderson, and a cadre of low round picks/UDFAs on the OL), and that's something very special.

A player like McNabb was schemed to use his legs. Defenses committed extra guys to playing contain on him. This opens up the quick hit slants and enables guys like Thrash and Pinkston to be NFL players. As he aged and became a "pocket passer", Westbrook emerged and they became a screen team, and his noodle armed replacements have been able to duplicate his production.

McDaniels having Cassell throwing to Welker and Moss behind that line doesn't show me much. If he does it here with better success and with Simms, then we can discuss, but why the **** would he want to?

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 07:40 AM
And with regard to the # of possessions, I'm still waiting on you to address why it wasn't a problem in the first month of the season, when they were averaging 10 possessions per game and scoring 40 pts per game.



So? I don't get the point. You can't seriously be making the argument that an offense with 10 possessions should score as much as an offense with 12 possessions over the long run? It's kinda a common sense point here, the more times you have the ball the more times you are likely to score points.

It would be like if we went bowling and I bowled 12 frames a game and you bowled 10 frames a game. The best way to figure out who was actually the ''better'' bowler would be to figure out the average number of pins per frame we knocked down.

BroncoInferno
03-19-2009, 07:47 AM
BI, too lazy to do the double reply cut and past so I'll just address your points here.

Yes, the system is important in that it needs to play and adjust to it's players strengths. However, it's downright inescapable to ignore that it's the players who drive the bus.

Occasionally, you get a mind that can take scraps in the entire unit, and turn them into something special (ie: Plummer, Lelie, Old Rod, Putz, Mike Anderson, and a cadre of low round picks/UDFAs on the OL), and that's something very special.

A player like McNabb was schemed to use his legs. Defenses committed extra guys to playing contain on him. This opens up the quick hit slants and enables guys like Thrash and Pinkston to be NFL players. As he aged and became a "pocket passer", Westbrook emerged and they became a screen team, and his noodle armed replacements have been able to duplicate his production.

McDaniels having Cassell throwing to Welker and Moss behind that line doesn't show me much. If he does it here with better success and with Simms, then we can discuss, but why the **** would he want to?

On McNabb, what about your earlier point of his backups stepping in and having success despite playing with the same mediocre talent? A guy like Ty Detmer--with almost np physical talent at all--stepping in with a group of average (at best) WRs, average (at best) RBs, yet being a productive player? On down through AJ Feeley, Jeff Garcia. Different guys, same mediocre talent, similar results.

So, you aren't giving McD any credit for reviving Moss' sagging career or helping Welker become a Pro Bowler? No one was willing to give more than a 4th for Moss before the '07 season. People thought he was finished and not worth the trouble. You can't tell me it was just a given that he would be successful? If that were the case, certainly some team would have trumped a 4th rounder? And Welker had a single career TD before he got to New England. No, you're wrong, he would not have been an All-Pro caliber player in Miami. And then Cassel steps in and the offense is still elite. That doesn't impress you? What about 2006? McD was calling plays and had average WRs and RBs, yet produced a very good offense. So, what, is your argument that almost any QB can step in and have that level of success with NEs talent? Because if that's what you're arguing, I'm not sure why you care so much about Cutler. Our offensive talent is VERY comparable to NE. The receivers are comparable but maybe a notch below, our OL is better, RBs similar issues with injuries. If Cassel stepping in and being successful doesn't impress you, then with our talent level Simms--who has more physical talent than Cassel--ought to have no problem stepping in for us. Have you really thought your argument out here?

Rohirrim
03-19-2009, 07:51 AM
It appears that Jay Cutler has already been placed in the pantheon of immortal Broncos gods. I think I'll wait to join in the adoration until I see him choose the open man in the flat over the triple covered guy up the middle. ;D

He does have a great arm, though. No doubt about it. I'm sure he thinks he can zip that thing into just about anywhere. And as long as he believes that, we keep going 8 and 8.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 07:53 AM
So? I don't get the point. You can't seriously be making the argument that an offense with 10 possessions should score as much as an offense with 12 possessions over the long run? It's kinda a common sense point here, the more times you have the ball the more times you are likely to score points.

Of course not. I'll spell it out.

What separated the Broncos of the first few weeks (that was putting up 40 pts per game on average) from the Broncos of the last half of the season (that wasn't even close)?

Was it your precious possessions per game? Nope. They were consistently at 10 possessions per game, even when they were putting up all those pts. You can't show me a trend where the more times the Broncos had the ball, the more they scored. It just didn't happen last year. It seemed to me that they tended to score more the fewer times they had the ball. Odd, I know. But true.

Was it your precious field position? Nope. Same here. They were consistently sucky.

Was it INTs? Ahhhhh, here we go.

Not surprisingly (to me at least), the better the Broncos were at holding onto the ball, the more they scored. This one statistic affected the Broncos in particular FAR more than field position and number of possessions they had.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 07:54 AM
Most of Cutler's turnovers were earlier on in games. His outstanding 4th quarter QB rating that somebody posted here earlier in the week supports that.

10 of his 18 INTs came when we were down 9 points or more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=9597

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 07:59 AM
Of course not. I'll spell it out.

What separated the Broncos of the first few weeks (that was putting up 40 pts per game on average) from the Broncos of the last half of the season (that wasn't even close)?

Was it your precious possessions per game? Nope. They were consistently at 10 possessions per game, even when they were putting up all those pts. You can't show me a trend where the more times the Broncos had the ball, the more they scored. It just didn't happen last year. It seemed to me that they tended to score more the fewer times they had the ball. Odd, I know. But true.

Was it your precious field position? Nope. Same here. They were consistently sucky.

Was it INTs? Ahhhhh, here we go.

Not surprisingly (to me at least), the better the Broncos were at holding onto the ball, the more they scored. This one statistic affected the Broncos in particular FAR more than field position and number of possessions they had.


No team has ever come close to average 4 points per possession over the course of a season like we did the first 3 games. We shouldn't have to *shatter* records to be considered to have had a good offense last year.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 08:00 AM
10 of his 18 INTs came when we were down 9 points or more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=9597

But only 4 all season in the 4th quarter. I believe if you look at my post, I specifically address "garbage time."

I don't view a pick when you are down by 10 in the first half as "garbage time." Plummer is no longer the QB here. This team CAN come from behind on occasion.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 08:04 AM
No team has ever come close to average 4 points per possession over the course of a season like we did the first 3 games. We shouldn't have to *shatter* records to be considered to have had a good offense last year.

I'm not looking for shattered records. I'm just looking for a supposed "great offense" to score more pts against teams than those opponents, on average, were giving up to other teams. How many times did Denver do that after week three last year? Not many. And they wouldn't have had to shatter any records to do so.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 08:07 AM
But only 4 all season in the 4th quarter. I believe if you look at my post, I specifically address "garbage time."

I don't view a pick when you are down by 10 in the first half as "garbage time." Plummer is no longer the QB here. This team CAN come from behind on occasion.

Eh, he had identical 1st half/2nd half INTs. Where it's lopsided is that they came when we were getting blownout. Yeah, being down 10 or 20 in the 1st half isn't technically ''garbage time'', but with our D it was ''better force the ball'' time.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 08:09 AM
I'm not looking for shattered records. I'm just looking for a supposed "great offense" to score more pts against teams than those opponents, on average, were giving up to other teams. How many times did Denver do that after week three last year? Not many. And they wouldn't have had to shatter any records to do so.

We were the 9th scoring offense with the worst starting field position and a bad fg kicker. All things even, we'd be somewhere around 5th. Room for improvement there.... but com'on ... the only team with a worse D won 0 games, that should say something.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 08:13 AM
We were the 9th scoring offense with the worst starting field position and a bad fg kicker. All things even, we'd be somewhere around 5th. Room for improvement there.... but com'on ... the only team with a worse D won 0 games, that should say something.

I completely understand that. I'm just continually pointing out the ONE variable that changed after week three. It's not a coincidence.

Kicker? Same all season.
Defense? Same all season.
field position? Same all season.
# of possessions? Same all season.

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 08:18 AM
I completely understand that. I'm just continually pointing out the ONE variable that changed after week three. It's not a coincidence.

Kicker? Same all season.
Defense? Same all season.
field position? Same all season.
# of possessions? Same all season.

We do also know that Prater fell apart as the season went on, sadly. I know you loved him, but it happened.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 08:21 AM
We do also know that Prater fell apart as the season went on, sadly. I know you loved him, but it happened.

True, but an extra pt miss and 3-4 more field goals misses over the last 8 games as opposed to the first 8 games isn't enough to skew their scoring numbers for our purposes here.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 08:27 AM
I completely understand that. I'm just continually pointing out the ONE variable that changed after week three. It's not a coincidence.

Kicker? Same all season.
Defense? Same all season.
field position? Same all season.
# of possessions? Same all season.

1st of all, Jay had an INT in 2 of the first 3 games.

Second of all, you're cherry picking 3 games and saying the entire season has to be like that. Nobody averages 4 points a possession over the course of the season. You're asking for the impossible to be done on offense while ignoring the horrible defense.

It's the contrarianism I always talk about around here. As Orwell said, "to see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle."

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 08:34 AM
True, but an extra pt miss and 3-4 more field goals misses over the last 8 games as opposed to the first 8 games isn't enough to skew their scoring numbers for our purposes here.

I agree, but that's just an extra lack of confidence concern to along with the defense when you're dropping back to throw. Naturally, that's just more speculation, but really, I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to account for a decent gob of the picks.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 08:34 AM
1st of all, Jay had an INT in 2 of the first 3 games.

Second of all, you're cherry picking 3 games and saying the entire season has to be like that. Nobody averages 4 points a possession over the course of the season. You're asking for the impossible to be done on offense while ignoring the horrible defense.

It's the contrarianism I always talk about around here. As Orwell said, "to see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle."

I'm not talking about one turnover. I'm talking multiple.

Cherry picking 3 games? How about 2 more.....the only 2 where they scored more than 30 pts the rest of the season. Cleveland and the Jets. One game 10 drives, one game 11 drives....Obviously wasn't a factor there.

And only one turnover in each game. Shocking.

Good things happened when they turned the ball over once or twice, regardless of field position, # of possessions, time of possession, weather, or the # of times they showed Hillis' family in the stands.

Bad things happened when they turned it over more than once, regardless of those same factors above.

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 08:37 AM
On McNabb, what about your earlier point of his backups stepping in and having success despite playing with the same mediocre talent? A guy like Ty Detmer--with almost np physical talent at all--stepping in with a group of average (at best) WRs, average (at best) RBs, yet being a productive player? On down through AJ Feeley, Jeff Garcia. Different guys, same mediocre talent, similar results. .

So, you aren't giving McD any credit for reviving Moss' sagging career or helping Welker become a Pro Bowler? No one was willing to give more than a 4th for Moss before the '07 season. People thought he was finished and not worth the trouble. You can't tell me it was just a given that he would be successful? If that were the case, certainly some team would have trumped a 4th rounder? And Welker had a single career TD before he got to New England. No, you're wrong, he would not have been an All-Pro caliber player in Miami. And then Cassel steps in and the offense is still elite. That doesn't impress you? What about 2006? McD was calling plays and had average WRs and RBs, yet produced a very good offense. So, what, is your argument that almost any QB can step in and have that level of success with NEs talent? Because if that's what you're arguing, I'm not sure why you care so much about Cutler. Our offensive talent is VERY comparable to NE. The receivers are comparable but maybe a notch below, our OL is better, RBs similar issues with injuries. If Cassel stepping in and being successful doesn't impress you, then with our talent level Simms--who has more physical talent than Cassel--ought to have no problem stepping in for us. Have you really thought your argument out here?

I literally, just addressed that.

SportinOne
03-19-2009, 08:42 AM
It appears that Jay Cutler has already been placed in the pantheon of immortal Broncos gods. I think I'll wait to join in the adoration until I see him choose the open man in the flat over the triple covered guy up the middle. ;D

He does have a great arm, though. No doubt about it. I'm sure he thinks he can zip that thing into just about anywhere. And as long as he believes that, we keep going 8 and 8.

23,000+ trys and you are still getting it wrong. How did you make it this far without achieving Bob-status by posting asinine statements like this?

No one is crowning him. All us "pro-Cutler" guys are saying is that he is a very unique talent and although that talent hasn't produced a superbowl or even a playoff victory quite yet, he is NOT the problem on this team. I don't know how anyone could say that he was bringing this team down and not the other way around. It's very obvious that, aside from Clady who IS godlike, Cutler is the best player on his unit.

Oh wait, he's not a leader? He's not a seasoned veteran leader after 2.3 years of starting experience. Not even at the grizzled old age of 24? But wait, let's go back to your "we'll always be 8-8" theory.

Statement: "As long as he believes that (he can just zip that thing into just about anywhere), we keep going 8-8."

So you are telling me that if we would have had a top 15 defense we would still have been 8-8 last year? Really? Also, are you implying that Jay will never get better at managing games and will ALWAYS throw 16 picks in a season? I will stop here and allow you to correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this is what you are saying. Is it?

BroncoInferno
03-19-2009, 08:45 AM
I literally, just addressed that.

You talked about McNabb being a one-man gang before he started getting injured. I did not see you address the fact the his backups had success with the same mediocre players, nor how that supports your view about system vs. players.

Rohirrim
03-19-2009, 08:52 AM
23,000+ trys and you are still getting it wrong. How did you make it this far without achieving Bob-status by posting asinine statements like this?

No one is crowning him. All us "pro-Cutler" guys are saying is that he is a very unique talent and although that talent hasn't produced a superbowl or even a playoff victory quite yet, he is NOT the problem on this team. I don't know how anyone could say that he was brining this team down and not the other way around. It's very obvious that, aside from Clady who IS godlike, Cutler is the best player on his unit.

Oh wait, he's not a leader? He's not a seasoned veteran leader after 2.3 years of starting experience. Not even at the grizzled old age of 24? But wait, let's go back to your "we'll always be 8-8" theory.

Statement: "As long as he believes that (he can just zip that thing into just about anywhere), we keep going 8-8."

So you are telling me that if we would have had a top 15 defense we would still have been 8-8 last year? Really? Also, are you implying that Jay will never get better at managing games and will ALWAYS throw 16 picks in a season? I will stop here and allow you to correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this is what you are saying. Is it?

Thanks for the drama. Like I said, he has a great arm.

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 08:56 AM
You talked about McNabb being a one-man gang before he started getting injured. I did not see you address the fact the his backups had success with the same mediocre players, nor how that supports your view about system vs. players.

Here. The post you replied directly to.

BI, too lazy to do the double reply cut and past so I'll just address your points here.

Yes, the system is important in that it needs to play and adjust to it's players strengths. However, it's downright inescapable to ignore that it's the players who drive the bus.

Occasionally, you get a mind that can take scraps in the entire unit, and turn them into something special (ie: Plummer, Lelie, Old Rod, Putz, Mike Anderson, and a cadre of low round picks/UDFAs on the OL), and that's something very special.

A player like McNabb was schemed to use his legs. Defenses committed extra guys to playing contain on him. This opens up the quick hit slants and enables guys like Thrash and Pinkston to be NFL players. As he aged and became a "pocket passer", Westbrook emerged and they became a screen team, and his noodle armed replacements have been able to duplicate his production.
McDaniels having Cassell throwing to Welker and Moss behind that line doesn't show me much. If he does it here with better success and with Simms, then we can discuss, but why the **** would he want to?

BroncoInferno
03-19-2009, 08:59 AM
One problem with your response is that Westbrook was a role player when Ty Detmer and AJ Feeley were taking snaps. Also, the "slants" thing plays into the system argument. You act as if it's such an easy concept...well, why the hell couldn't other teams thwart the execution if that's the case?

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 09:00 AM
I'm not talking about one turnover. I'm talking multiple.

Cherry picking 3 games? How about 2 more.....the only 2 where they scored more than 30 pts the rest of the season. Cleveland and the Jets. One game 10 drives, one game 11 drives....Obviously wasn't a factor there.

And only one turnover in each game. Shocking.

Good things happened when they turned the ball over once or twice, regardless of field position, # of possessions, time of possession, weather, or the # of times they showed Hillis' family in the stands.

Bad things happened when they turned it over more than once, regardless of those same factors above.

You're making the case that because we were off the charts certain games, that should be standard to measure everything else by. It's classic contrarianism, where you ignore a common sense point that the more times you have the ball, and the closer to the opponents goaline you start, the more likely you are to score points.

It's simply not reasonable to expect a 16 game stretch of putting up 30-40 points a game on 10 drives a game. It does not happen ever over the course of a season, even if we did do it a few times last season. It is not a reasonable expectation.

Look at our 2005 playoff win over NE. We had the ball 13 times. 4 of those times began in NE territory, including once at their 1 yard line. What we scored in that game were defensive points that gets credited to the offense. We had none of that last year. We'd get the ball at our 25 yard line 10 times a game, and that was it.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 09:10 AM
Look....I COMPLETELY understand your point.

I even explicitly stated early on that it defied "logic". That doesn't mean it didn't happen last year, though. The 5 games they scored the most points, they had the ball only 10 times on average. Don't shoot the messenger.

You keep harping on this "4 pts per drive record-shattering pace" thing like it was impossible to do. You know what? They would've had a better shot at that pace if they didn't turn the ball over so much than if they had the ball 3 yards closer to the opponent's side of the field, which you seem to love so pointing to as a bigger factor.

Taco John
03-19-2009, 09:13 AM
You're never going to settle the O's stat debate because the only thing you have at your disposal to do so is facts and reason, and those make poor currency in a debate based on emotion. You're arguing against people who gave Plummer every pardon because he didn't have the benefit of having the best defense in all of pro sports covering his mistakes. And now with a worse defense on the field they refuse to cut the same pardon for Jay.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 09:20 AM
Look....I COMPLETELY understand your point.

I even explicitly stated early on that it defied "logic". That doesn't mean it didn't happen last year, though. The 5 games they scored the most points, they had the ball only 10 times on average. Don't shoot the messenger.

You keep harping on this "4 pts per drive record-shattering pace" thing like it was impossible to do. You know what? They would've had a better shot at that pace if they didn't turn the ball over so much than if they had the ball 3 yards closer to the opponent's side of the field, which you seem to love so pointing to as a bigger factor.

Look, NO led the league in points per drive with 2.54 points, I said 4 is impossible and unreasonable over the course of a season because it is.

And it's not just about starting 5 yards closer on average, it's about sometimes you're going to be starting at your opponents 5 yardline or whatever. Look through some drivecharts of other teams, and that kind of thing happens fairly frequently. It virtually never did for us. I went through our last 6 games by hand and never once did we start on their side of the field. In our 2005 win over NE it happened 4 times in one game, including once at the 1 yard line (obviously that game is cherry picking on my part, but you get the point I hope).

Rohirrim
03-19-2009, 09:23 AM
You're never going to settle the O's stat debate because the only thing you have at your disposal to do so is facts and reason, and those make poor currency in a debate based on emotion. You're arguing against people who gave Plummer every pardon because he didn't have the benefit of having the best defense in all of pro sports covering his mistakes. And now with a worse defense on the field they refuse to cut the same pardon for Jay.

Forget all the numbers. Are you saying Jay doesn't have so much faith in his arm power that he has a bad habit of trying to zip it in where it should not go? And that he would benefit from a coach who can help him build a more complete game, rather than just the gunslinger approach? After all, Jake was a gunslinger too. So was Favre. If somebody could have coached Favre into a more complete, smarter game do you think he might have won more than one SB? Here's what it boils down to: Would you rather have the kind of QB who is taking chances, gunslinging, throwing INTs mixed with great bombs and wins one SB in his career, or a guy who manages the game, works the system, and wins three or four SBs in his career?

BroncoInferno
03-19-2009, 09:26 AM
You're never going to settle the O's stat debate because the only thing you have at your disposal to do so is facts and reason, and those make poor currency in a debate based on emotion. You're arguing against people who gave Plummer every pardon because he didn't have the benefit of having the best defense in all of pro sports covering his mistakes. And now with a worse defense on the field they refuse to cut the same pardon for Jay.

God, you can be arrogant. Here are the facts of which you speak. 16th in points scored...not good enough. 8th in committed turnovers...not good enough. Yes, there were extenuating circumstances that factored in, but the main point is that this offense was not some juggernaut, some Ferrari that Bowlen need only hand the keys off to the next coach. The offense has some definite issues that need addressing. It needs to improve. Those facts don't have anything to do with Plummer. That dog won't hunt.

BroncoInferno
03-19-2009, 09:29 AM
If somebody could have coached Favre into a more complete, smarter game do you think he might have won more than one SB?

Actually, someone did coach Favre into a complete player for about half a decade...Holmgren. Once Holmgren and his leash were gone, that's when Favre reverted back to being a gunslinging turnover machine. I think McDaniels could be Cutler's Holmgren if Jay would wise up.

Rohirrim
03-19-2009, 09:36 AM
Actually, someone did coach Favre into a complete player for about half a decade...Holmgren. Once Holmgren and his leash were gone, that's when Favre reverted back to being a gunslinging turnover machine. I think McDaniels could be Cutler's Holmgren if Jay would wise up.

Bingo!

TheReverend
03-19-2009, 09:40 AM
One problem with your response is that Westbrook was a role player when Ty Detmer and AJ Feeley were taking snaps. Also, the "slants" thing plays into the system argument. You act as if it's such an easy concept...well, why the hell couldn't other teams thwart the execution if that's the case?

Hey, real quick. I'm too immersed in survivor to focus properly. Just wanted to say I actually enjoyed this discussion and you make some good points, while I vehemently disagree with others.

Gort
03-19-2009, 10:05 AM
So, we can see that we finished 9th in scoring Offense despite having the absolute worst starting field position in the league. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, but our Offense was very, very good.

i don't care if Jay starts a drive at his own 5 and completes 6 of 7 passes for 84 yards to take the team down to the opponents 11. if he throws an INT on that 8th pass, then that was not an offensive possession to feel good about. period.

stats suck. wins and losses are what matters. the whole team wins together or the whole team loses together... or they are NOT a team.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 10:12 AM
i don't care if Jay starts a drive at his own 5 and completes 6 of 7 passes for 84 yards to take the team down to the opponents 11. if he throws an INT on that 8th pass, then that was not an offensive possession to feel good about. period.

stats suck. wins and losses are what matters. the whole team wins together or the whole team loses together... or they are NOT a team.

Actually, that would be a very good change of field position and a net positive for the average team.

And, I'll mention again - the one team with a worse defense than us had 0 wins for the season. We had 8.

rugbythug
03-19-2009, 10:12 AM
Here is another way to look at the Debate. I have broken out our stats as per the Defense it played. and Our Percentage Change VS what they gave up as an average. The Best Defense we played was ranked 9th.

3.10% 9
-11.00% 10
55.56% 14
0.63% 15
35.96% 16
-11.99% 17
-15.20% 18
-6.11% 23
2.15% 24
40.06% 25
17.00% 25
61.14% 26
13.66% 27
-17.78% 27
1.36% 31
-3.41% 31

rugbythug
03-19-2009, 10:16 AM
What does this Tell you. Well on average we faced the 21st Ranked Defense and we were +10% against them. That means we actually gained 10% more yards per contest than those teams Gave up on average.

Fedaykin
03-19-2009, 10:18 AM
On Defense we can see they were left in pretty good shape, the fewest possessions in the league to defend against and the in middle of the pack from where they started from. With that, the only team with a worse Defense did not win a game.

Obviously you haven't gotten the memo. The reason we weren't 16-0 had nothing to do with the defense, but it was all Cutler's fault. The kid just simply isn't a winner. Sure, he puts up some pretty stats, but he can't singlehandedly take on the entire other team. Good quarterbacks do that, losers like Cutler don't.

rugbythug
03-19-2009, 10:20 AM
here is my work I should have it attached

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 10:20 AM
What does this Tell you. Well on average we faced the 21st Ranked Defense and we were -.13 against them. That means we actually gained less Yards per contest than those teams Gave up.

This will no doubt get ignored.

rugbythug
03-19-2009, 10:22 AM
I was completely Shocked by the numbers myself. I did not expect it at all.

frerottenextelway
03-19-2009, 10:31 AM
I was completely Shocked by the numbers myself. I did not expect it at all.

A quick add by me shows we gained 538 more total yards than they gave up (on average). Or 33.6 yards a game.

Not sure the point of that is....

summerdenver
03-19-2009, 11:50 AM
This will no doubt get ignored.


Some of you have brought very good points regarding turnovers. It is hard to deny that Broncos had more turnovers than they would have liked - whether its fumbles or interceptions. I will buy into the theory that this may have been more responsible than the poor defense/ST for us not being an elite offense.

I donot beleive that we feasted on poor defenses and struggled against tougher defenses though. We were just plain inconsistent. One reason why I like FO rankings is that they take into account things like quality of defense and their system also down grades garbage time stats. It is not perfect by any means but it is the best we have right now. Per their rankings we were #5 (or is it #6) ranked offense last year - which is pretty good for an offense that is still evolving.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2009, 12:05 PM
Some of you have brought very good points regarding turnovers. It is hard to deny that Broncos had more turnovers than they would have liked - whether its fumbles or interceptions. I will buy into the theory that this may have been more responsible than the poor defense/ST for us not being an elite offense.

I donot beleive that we feasted on poor defenses and struggled against tougher defenses though. We were just plain inconsistent. One reason why I like FO rankings is that they take into account things like quality of defense and their system also down grades garbage time stats. It is not perfect by any means but it is the best we have right now. Per their rankings we were #5 (or is it #6) ranked offense last year - which is pretty good for an offense that is still evolving.

Good post....though I think it's pretty clear that the Broncos offense feasted on poor defenses pretty exclusively. In the five games where they scored at least 30 pts, here are the opposing defensive rankings:

16, 23, 25, 26 and 27.

OABB
03-19-2009, 12:09 PM
Good post....though I think it's pretty clear that the Broncos offense feasted on poor defenses pretty exclusively. In the five games where they scored at least 30 pts, here are the opposing defensive rankings:

16, 23, 25, 26 and 27.

I'm sorry, what point are we trying to make here. That we played better o against bad d's? Isn't that always the way things work out?

If you guys are trying to say our offense isn't as good as some would say, I would agree.

but how can the same people who ignore the rb injuries and poor d stats, turn around and try and use this one?

skpac1001
03-19-2009, 12:20 PM
I'm sorry, what point are we trying to make here. That we played better o against bad d's? Isn't that always the way things work out?

If you guys are trying to say our offense isn't as good as some would say, I would agree.

but how can the same people who ignore the rb injuries and poor d stats, turn around and try and use this one?

Because when we went against the 9th best defense and scored 16 points, our rb situation was fine and our defense held them to 13. When we went against the 10th and scored 7, or rb situation was fine. Defense sucked then, but you can't blame only scoring 7 points on defense.

skpac1001
03-19-2009, 12:44 PM
By the way, I don't think our offense sucks or Cutler is a choke artist or anything like that. I think our offense is as talented as any in the league, and while Cutler and crew didn't do well against good defenses this year, he did very well his second year (when he had less freedom) against Pitt. I do think that it shows that when we tried to copy the Patriots aggressive, effective, low mistake system we got the aggressive part down pat, and we were effective against bad d's, but the effective (against good d's) and low mistake part seemed lost in translation. I am hoping when everything simmers down that Cutler is our qb running McDaniels system, because I think Cutlers gifts tempered by McDaniels mental approach and disipline will give us an offense that is a terror against bad d's, but also effective against playoff caliber d's.