PDA

View Full Version : what is different about this 09 3-0 team and last year's 3-0 team?


broncocalijohn
09-28-2009, 01:33 PM
Similarities would be the same start with one "lucky" win. To me, we had a tougher schedule after three games last year but we all pretty much had a feeling that we would need to be like Don Coryell's Chargers to win (last one who scores wins). Our start of the offense totally clicking worked well to start but we fizzled in both offense and defense (offense at points where we should have dominated). This year, we havent made many mistakes on both sides of the ball (a few gimme FGs and Hillis fumble on ST), but our offense has been more "vanilla" and safe (may I say we played it safer with Plummer in 05 and had pretty good results), but can it beat teams with a powerfull offense and much better defense than we have seen in teams like the Browns (once again, we did beat the Raiders that had a good D). I did a poll after week 2 and the opinion is we are going 3 and 3 (started with a win in Oakland). With optomist predictions between 7 and 9 and 9 and 7, would you feel better than last year if we hit this range? Lot of juice in the above opinions/statements but we were way off last year and I want to know if this start was expected and if opinions for a better record or even a playoff berth is now likely. I had us at 8-8 and thinking 9-7 at least can be based on our great D and other "great" teams arent as great as expected.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 01:42 PM
We have a defense. End thread

atomicbloke
09-28-2009, 01:42 PM
We beat 2 good teams last time around.... Chargers and Saints....

We could move the ball at will.... but I guess this time, we seem to stopping the other team at will...

We were an aerial attack last time with no ground game.... we seem to be run heavy this time....

We had a much easier schedule last time... at least on paper, we didnt have 4 teams coming off bye weeks..... and no early road games on the east coast....

I guess the joker in the pack is if our D this year is for real and can actually perform against high powered offenses like the Colts, Cowgirls, Chuggers, etc.... or if it a 2006 rehash....

Rohirrim
09-28-2009, 01:45 PM
A running game and a defense means you win games the pundits don't think you should win.

Dagmar
09-28-2009, 01:49 PM
Didn't have to win a game on a blown call?

d bronx42
09-28-2009, 01:51 PM
We have a defense. End thread

What he said...:thumbsup:

TailgateNut
09-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Didn't have to win a game on a blown call?

:rofl: A fumble/pass by noodle Hand.

JCMElway
09-28-2009, 01:53 PM
Yeah, if we got lucky in Cincy this year we sure as hell got lucky vs. SD last year. So that's another similarity.

But, having a defense will make us a better team this year. The tougher schedule, well, that may be a bit more problematic....

Rich Karlis
09-28-2009, 01:54 PM
We have a coach who seems to have all 53 buying into what he's selling.

Cito Pelon
09-28-2009, 02:08 PM
I think a big deal is better conditioning/stamina. I don't see players out of gas in the 4th Q.

gunns
09-28-2009, 02:11 PM
16 pts. Defense

ward63
09-28-2009, 02:12 PM
Defense..Defense..DEFENSE!

skpac1001
09-28-2009, 02:14 PM
We have a balanced football team instead of a passing offense and a bunch of other guys they bring along with them.

loborugger
09-28-2009, 02:19 PM
The difference?

Simple - Shanny teams ALWAYS came outta the gates charging. Always. Look at our records throughout the 90s over the first 4 games and the first 8 games.

Last year, we were hanging almost 40 pts a game in the first 3 weeks. Look at what happened as the season progressed.

Ya, we are playing better 'D' this season. And we might fizzle. And with the way our schedule looks now, who knows what the season holds in store for us.

Had Shanny run this team, you know we woulda scored a crap load more points in Cincy. You know we would have. Of course, Cincy probably woulda scored a handful more, too. We probably woulda hang 40 on Cleveland, and at least 30 on Oakland.

That is the difference.

Beantown Bronco
09-28-2009, 02:20 PM
Though this defense is playing great, better than last year, and can only play who is on the schedule, let's not forget that last year's team had to face the 08 Chargers and Saints, two historically great scoring offenses. I think it's safe to say that 16 pts would be a pipe dream if this year's defense had to play those two teams to start the season.

Jason in LA
09-28-2009, 03:41 PM
Last year I thought that the Broncos were just an average team, even when they were sitting at 8-5. They had 8-8 written all over them the entire season. When anybody would question a certain aspect of the team people would go nuts, and then they ended up at 8-8.

This year's team is way better on D, not as good on O. Tougher opponents will show if they are for real or not.

I'm enjoying this 3-0 start, but I'm not about to get any illusions of grandeur and call this team a playoff team just yet. Lets see how they do over the next 5 weeks. If they can win 3 of the games I'd say that they are for real. Even if they only win two of the games I'd say that they were better than I thought they'd be. If they only win one of those games, or even worse, none of them (I really don't see that happening), then there will be a lot of folks saying "I told you so".

It would be cool if we could have last year's offense with this year's defense.

rastaman
09-28-2009, 03:50 PM
:rofl: A fumble/pass by noodle Hand.

No different than a "Hail Mary Pass" by a Noodle Arm Qb named Kyle Orton.ROFL!

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 03:55 PM
Last year I thought that the Broncos were just an average team, even when they were sitting at 8-5. They had 8-8 written all over them the entire season. When anybody would question a certain aspect of the team people would go nuts, and then they ended up at 8-8.

This year's team is way better on D, not as good on O. Tougher opponents will show if they are for real or not.

I'm enjoying this 3-0 start, but I'm not about to get any illusions of grandeur and call this team a playoff team just yet. Lets see how they do over the next 5 weeks. If they can win 3 of the games I'd say that they are for real. Even if they only win two of the games I'd say that they were better than I thought they'd be. If they only win one of those games, or even worse, none of them (I really don't see that happening), then there will be a lot of folks saying "I told you so".

It would be cool if we could have last year's offense with this year's defense.


I'd actually much prefer this years offense...just with a different quarterback (and im not saying that QB should be Cutler)

Baba Booey
09-28-2009, 03:56 PM
Last year:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/drew/DREW1018.gif

This year:
http://www.electrobertjones.com/projects/sas/BrianDawkins.png

GreatBronco16
09-28-2009, 03:56 PM
Well we could call the Charger game early last year a 'lucky' win too, being that that actually did fumble that ball to end the game.

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 03:57 PM
The other teamís punter has to suit up.

Clockwork Orange
09-28-2009, 03:58 PM
I'd actually much prefer this years offense...just with a different quarterback (and im not saying that QB should be Cutler)

This years offense doesn't have seven RB's on IR, leaving our head coach to go trolling for talent at the Aurora Mall. That definitely gives this years offense a leg up. ;D

listopencil
09-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Defense much better, Offense much worse.

One definite positive moving forward though, the announcers mentioned that we didn't have to punt against Oakland until garbage time. I think we had 2? Both in the fourth quarter when the game was over. And OAK has a pretty good D.

Irish Stout
09-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Better O - sorry, but having Gaffney, Buckhalter, and Moreno are better than what we lost from last year.

Better D - No questions here.

Better Coaching - whatever you thought of Shanny and whatever you currently think of McD - got to admit the coaching on ST and D is 100x better than last year. McD also is putting every single game plan week to week on the shoulders of his QB, thus slightly better strategizing.

Thus, better team.

Also, I truly believe you've got one locker room that is totally commited to each other and to winning... I think there was a lot of disconnect the last few Shanny years.

Irish Stout
09-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Defense much better, Offense much worse.

One definite positive moving forward though, the announcers mentioned that we didn't have to punt against Oakland until garbage time. I think we had 2? Both in the fourth quarter when the game was over. And OAK has a pretty good D.

Your two paragraphs don't connect. So our O is much worse, but yet we didn't have to punt till garbage time.... explain how that makes our O "much worse."

Rabb
09-28-2009, 04:06 PM
the offense is not MUCH worse, I hate that people say that

it is more efficient if anything, yeah we aren't putting up 40 a game but after the first few games last year...we weren't either, and we needed it then

the offense is just as good as it was last year just in different areas, stop judging it on flashy stats already

defense + running = wins most of the time

listopencil
09-28-2009, 04:09 PM
Better O - sorry, but having Gaffney, Buckhalter, and Moreno are better than what we lost from last year.

I like the way they played against OAK. But the OP was compare just the first 3 games of both years. When you just compare that...this Offense pales in comparison.

Better D - No questions here.

Absolutely agree

Better Coaching - whatever you thought of Shanny and whatever you currently think of McD - got to admit the coaching on ST and D is 100x better than last year. McD also is putting every single game plan week to week on the shoulders of his QB, thus slightly better strategizing.

Yep, this team looks like it has better coaching overall, considering all three phases of the game.

Thus, better team.

Also, I truly believe you've got one locker room that is totally commited to each other and to winning... I think there was a lot of disconnect the last few Shanny years.


I have to agree so far. Our Offense is starting to click and the Defense/ST are still looking good.

Jason in LA
09-28-2009, 04:10 PM
I'd actually much prefer this years offense...just with a different quarterback (and im not saying that QB should be Cutler)

I don't know why anybody would want this year's offense.

listopencil
09-28-2009, 04:10 PM
Your two paragraphs don't connect. So our O is much worse, but yet we didn't have to punt till garbage time.... explain how that makes our O "much worse."

We have played three games. The OP was to judge the team based on all of those three, not just the OAK game.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 04:11 PM
I don't know why anybody would want this year's offense.

Because its committed to a so far successful running game and a passing game that doesnt create turnovers and knows a thing or two about ball control (not to mention, its a completelynew O and they are only three games into it)....yeah, i have NO clue why anyone would want it.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 04:13 PM
This years offense doesn't have seven RB's on IR, leaving our head coach to go trolling for talent at the Aurora Mall. That definitely gives this years offense a leg up. ;D

Outside of the first three games last year, our offense wasnt anything all that special.

Clockwork Orange
09-28-2009, 04:14 PM
Outside of the first three games last year, our offense wasnt anything all that special.

Funny, that's roughly when the running game started to go south and the offense became one dimensional.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 04:17 PM
Funny, that's roughly when the running game started to go south and the offense became one dimensional.

And even though we lost 7rbs, its not like any were worthwhile outside of hillis. Young, Pittman, Hall....garbage

Clockwork Orange
09-28-2009, 04:19 PM
And even though we lost 7rbs, its not like any were worthwhile outside of hillis. Young, Pittman, Hall....garbage

Actually, the troika of Young, Hall and Pittman were doing fine. They were splitting the carries with Pittman getting the goal line work. None of them were anything special, but they were all serviceable in their respective roles.

Rabb
09-28-2009, 04:21 PM
depth is so underrated with this team it is funny, McD clearly saw we had some depth issues all over the team last year

so this year if we get some injuries (the RB situation last year was freakishly bad), one component won't destroy the team

not to mention, conditioning is way better it seems so far this year which probably will reduce injuries (stupid, controllable ones at least)

BroncoInferno
09-28-2009, 04:22 PM
I don't know why anybody would want this year's offense.

Because last's years offense was a turnover machine and despite getting a lot of yards was only 16th in scoring for the season and only 24th over the final 13 games. This offense won't drop 40 on anyone, but it is efficient; they run the ball very effectively and don't turn it over. In short, this years offense figures to produce more consistent returns than last years group, which contrary to popular opinion was not very good.

enjolras
09-28-2009, 04:24 PM
Last year we had:

Week 1: Blew out the Raiders in Oakland
Week 2: Eeeked out a fortunate win 39-38 against the Chargers at home
Week 3: Eeekd out a nail biter against the saints 34-32 at home

This year:

Week 1: A very fortunate win in Cincy on the road
Week 2: Blew out the Browns at home
Week 3: Blew out the Raiders on the road

It seems to me that this team has shown the ability to really seperate from the teams they're playing. The last few seasons it seemed like most of our victories came in very tight games (the field goal against Buffalo, Shannahan freezing Janikowski mid-kick, Cutlers 'fumble', etc...). The margin of victory, even against bad competition, is much better this time around.

In short: This team has been much more dominating on the road to 3-0. We'll see if it stays that way.

jhns
09-28-2009, 04:24 PM
Because last's years offense was a turnover machine and despite getting a lot of yards was only 16th in scoring for the season and only 24th over the final 13 games. This offense won't drop 40 on anyone, but it is efficient; they run the ball very effectively and don't turn it over. In short, this years offense is better than last years which contrary to popular opinion was not very good.

WRONG.... 16th is a team stat. Take out defensive and special teams TDs for the league and we are top 10 in scoring. I'm not going to get into an argument about the offenses again but just correcting your info. We don't have an efficient offense right now though. We still have a lot of work to do in the red zone and in the passing game.

Cito Pelon
09-28-2009, 04:31 PM
I don't know why anybody would want this year's offense.

Looks similar to the '97-'98 offense, so I don't see the problem. The long cross to Marshall one on one with Asomugha in the 4th Q was a thing of beauty. Just to show they could.

jhns
09-28-2009, 04:33 PM
Looks similar to the '97-'98 offense, so I don't see the problem.

Without the QB. Orton does NOT have a stronger arm than Elway. Just sayin.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 04:35 PM
because its committed to a so far successful running game and a passing game that doesnt create turnovers and knows a thing or two about ball control (not to mention, its a completelynew o and they are only three games into it)....yeah, i have no clue why anyone would want it.

+1

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 04:39 PM
WRONG.... 16th is a team stat. Take out defensive and special teams TDs for the league and we are top 10 in scoring.

Link?

listopencil
09-28-2009, 04:39 PM
In short: This team has been much more dominating on the road to 3-0. We'll see if it stays that way.

Wow, I think my head just almost exploded. Last year we were able to keep up with two Offensive powerhouses even though we had no D. We also blew out a ****ty OAK team.

This year our O looked downright feeble for 1.5 of the 3 games we played. There is no way we would be 3-0 right now w/o our revamped D.

Cito Pelon
09-28-2009, 04:39 PM
Last year we had:

Week 1: Blew out the Raiders in Oakland
Week 2: Eeeked out a fortunate win 39-38 against the Chargers at home
Week 3: Eeekd out a nail biter against the saints 34-32 at home

This year:

Week 1: A very fortunate win in Cincy on the road
Week 2: Blew out the Browns at home
Week 3: Blew out the Raiders on the road

It seems to me that this team has shown the ability to really seperate from the teams they're playing. The last few seasons it seemed like most of our victories came in very tight games (the field goal against Buffalo, Shannahan freezing Janikowski mid-kick, Cutlers 'fumble', etc...). The margin of victory, even against bad competition, is much better this time around.

In short: This team has been much more dominating on the road to 3-0. We'll see if it stays that way.

That's a good sign.

BroncoInferno
09-28-2009, 04:39 PM
WRONG.... 16th is a team stat. Take out defensive and special teams TDs for the league and we are top 10 in scoring.

It is a FACT that were were 16th in scoring. It is also a fact that after starting hot for the first three games, that the offense was only 24th in scoring over the final 13 games. It is also a fact that we commited the 2nd most turnovers in the league. In short, the 2008 offense was pretty good at gaining yards, but pretty bad at scoring and protecting the footbal.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the offenses again but just correcting your info.

Except you did not correct anything. Everything I stated was a fact.

We don't have an efficient offense right now though. We still have a lot of work to do in the red zone and in the passing game.

We've commited only one turnover and are running the ball very effectively. We are also putting sufficient points on the board, especially the last two weeks. It's been an efficient offense so far. Not a great offense by any means, and there is still plenty of improvement to make, but I'll take that over last seasons unit which was a one-dimensional turnover factory.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 04:40 PM
Without the QB. Orton does NOT have a stronger arm than Elway. Just sayin.

I agree that its not like the 97-98 offense, not as dynamic, but i prefer this years to last years style.

Beantown Bronco
09-28-2009, 04:42 PM
Some folks are getting off track here. Those grading last year's offense lower based off anything that happened after the first three games are not sticking to the criteria set out in the original post.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 04:43 PM
Wow, I think my head just almost exploded. Last year we were able to keep up with two Offensive powerhouses even though we had no D. We also blew out a ****ty OAK team.

This year our O looked downright feeble for 1.5 of the 3 games we played. There is no way we would be 3-0 right now w/o our revamped D.

I thought the O was fine the last two games and quite effective. We obviously played it very close to the vest in the 2nd half of the raider game (and had trouble near the goalline) but we punted once? We moved the ball at will.

barryr
09-28-2009, 04:51 PM
The Broncos have a defense and have solid coverage in special teams, so are not always losing the battle of field position and in fact, are winning it most of the time this year. That hasn't been the case for a few years and it does make a big difference when the other team just needs to go 60-65 yards to score while you're always needing to go 80.

jhns
09-28-2009, 04:56 PM
It is a FACT that were were 16th in scoring. It is also a fact that after starting hot for the first three games, that the offense was only 24th in scoring over the final 13 games. It is also a fact that we commited the 2nd most turnovers in the league. In short, the 2008 offense was pretty good at gaining yards, but pretty bad at scoring and protecting the footbal.



Except you did not correct anything. Everything I stated was a fact.



We've commited only one turnover and are running the ball very effectively. We are also putting sufficient points on the board, especially the last two weeks. It's been an efficient offense so far. Not a great offense by any means, and there is still plenty of improvement to make, but I'll take that over last seasons unit which was a one-dimensional turnover factory.


Team stat. Look at your ranking here: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1
Note the 370 total used in that ranking.

Now do some research, or thinking after I point it out, and you will figure it out. Look here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/stats?team=den&year=2008 Look under "Scoring Statistics". Look at the total points on the right hand side. 370, same as your ranking total. Now look at how we got that total. Nate Webster and Vernon Fox were not on offense, sorry.....

Hey, don't let the facts get in your way though guys. I know how much you love bashing the Broncos, even if it means using fake numbers. We have not been good in the red zone this year and we have not been good at passing the ball.

listopencil
09-28-2009, 05:01 PM
I thought the O was fine the last two games and quite effective. We obviously played it very close to the vest in the 2nd half of the raider game (and had trouble near the goalline) but we punted once? We moved the ball at will.

I'd say from the second half on of week two the O has looked good. But, yeah. I think they looked pretty good against the Raiders. Goal line troubles in the running game would be my only complaint of the Offense as a whole in week three. I remember two punts, but the OAK Defense is for real. That was a good test for our Offense. I'm hoping that they have turned a corner and didn't just have a good game.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Team stat. Look at your ranking here: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1
Note the 370 total used in that ranking.

Now do some research, or thinking after I point it out, and you will figure it out. Look here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/stats?team=den&year=2008 Look under "Scoring Statistics". Look at the total points on the right hand side. 370, same as your ranking total. Now look at how we got that total. Nate Webster and Vernon Fox were not on offense, sorry.....

Hey, don't let the facts get in your way though guys. I know how much you love bashing the Broncos, even if it means using fake numbers. We have not been good in the red zone this year and we have not been good at passing the ball.

I think you better check your numbers here. I just brute forced out the Def and ST TDs (left in Kicker pts)and that still keeps Denver relatively unchanged.

Team G† Pts/G†Pts DefTD ST_TDs Off-Pts
#1 New Orleans Saints 16 28.9 463 0 1 457
#2 New York Giants 16 26.7 428 2 0 416
#3 San Diego Chargers 16 27.4 439 3 1 415
#4 Arizona Cardinals 16 26.7 428 3 1 404
#5 Carolina Panthers 16 25.9 415 2 0 403
#6 New England Patriots 16 25.6 410 0 2 398
#7 Philadelphia Eagles 16 26 416 5 1 380
#8 Atlanta Falcons 16 24.4 391 2 0 379
#9 Green Bay Packers 16 26.2 420 7 0 378
#10 New York Jets 16 25.3 405 5 0 375
#11 Minnesota Vikings 16 23.7 380 2 0 368
#12 Houston Texans 16 22.9 367 1 0 361
#13 Tennessee Titans 16 23.4 375 3 0 357
#14 Chicago Bears 16 23.4 375 3 0 357
#15 Indianapolis Colts 16 23.6 378 4 0 354
#16 Denver Broncos 16 23.1 370 2 1 352
#17 Dallas Cowboys 16 22.6 362 1 1 350
#18 Baltimore Ravens 16 24.1 386 6 2 338
#19 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 16 22.6 362 4 0 338
#20 Miami Dolphins 16 21.6 346 2 0 334
#21 San Francisco 49ers 16 21.2 340 1 0 334
#22 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 21.7 348 3 0 330
#23 Buffalo Bills 16 21.0 336 3 0 318
#24 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 18.9 303 3 0 285
#25 Seattle Seahawks 16 18.4 295 3 0 277
#26 Kansas City Chiefs 16 18.2 292 3 1 268
#27 Washington Redskins 16 16.6 266 0 0 266
#28 Detroit Lions 16 16.8 269 1 0 263
#29 Oakland Raiders 16 16.4 263 0 1 257
#30 St. Louis Rams 16 14.5 232 1 0 226
#31 Cleveland Browns 16 14.5 232 2 1 214
#32 Cincinnati Bengals 16 12.8 205 3 0 187

That sucks - it doesnt keep it looking like a table even with the spacing forced in.

DenverBrit
09-28-2009, 05:17 PM
Team stat. Look at your ranking here: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1
Note the 370 total used in that ranking.

Now do some research, or thinking after I point it out, and you will figure it out. Look here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/stats?team=den&year=2008 Look under "Scoring Statistics". Look at the total points on the right hand side. 370, same as your ranking total. Now look at how we got that total. Nate Webster and Vernon Fox were not on offense, sorry.....

Hey, don't let the facts get in your way though guys. I know how much you love bashing the Broncos, even if it means using fake numbers. We have not been good in the red zone this year and we have not been good at passing the ball.

Here's a thought.

Why don't YOU prove your point and deduct Defensive and ST scoring (except extra points) from all teams and see where the Broncos Offense is ranked?? ???

Edit: Looks like someone has done YOUR work for you.

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 05:19 PM
Team stat. Look at your ranking here: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1
Note the 370 total used in that ranking.

Now do some research, or thinking after I point it out, and you will figure it out. Look here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/stats?team=den&year=2008 Look under "Scoring Statistics". Look at the total points on the right hand side. 370, same as your ranking total. Now look at how we got that total. Nate Webster and Vernon Fox were not on offense, sorry.....

Hey, don't let the facts get in your way though guys. I know how much you love bashing the Broncos, even if it means using fake numbers. We have not been good in the red zone this year and we have not been good at passing the ball.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2574020&postcount=52
So what were you saying about facts again, I forgot?

DenverBrit
09-28-2009, 05:20 PM
done... and I am pretty sure he is wrong.

Yep, I saw that right after I posted. Thanks.

Archer81
09-28-2009, 05:21 PM
Through the first 3 games of 2008, we allowed 84 points.


:Broncos:

Rabb
09-28-2009, 05:24 PM
This message is hidden because jhns is on your ignore list.

the only fact in this thread I care about :~ohyah!:

Majik
09-28-2009, 05:27 PM
There's a difference between just winning games and winning games in dominating fashion.

Yes anyone can beat the raiders and browns this season, but i'd rather dominate them like we did, instead of squeak wins off the raiders like the chargers and chiefs did, or like how the vikings didn't pull away from the browns until the 4th quarter week 1.

Bad/mediocre teams don't dominate other bad teams. Example Redskins and Rams from week 2.

misturanderson
09-28-2009, 05:29 PM
the only fact in this thread I care about :~ohyah!:

Nice to see that others figured this out. I have to think he's on nearly everyone's ignore list since nobody ever seems to reply to him or quote him.

ZONA
09-28-2009, 05:32 PM
I think the BIGGEST difference is that the 08 team was lead by a man that had been coaching this team for a very very long time and was a savy veteran coach with 2 Superbowls to show for it and the expectations were high.

This year everybody in the world thought that a first time rookie HC who was perceived to be making mistake after mistake and didn't know what he was doing was going to be leading a team with too many changes to list and expectations were silly low.

Funny how things change so quickly.

ZONA
09-28-2009, 05:33 PM
Through the first 3 games of 2008, we allowed 84 points.


:Broncos:

ouch

jhns
09-28-2009, 07:14 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2574020&postcount=52
So what were you saying about facts again, I forgot?

You kids are so quick to believe everything. You never wait for a point to actually be proven.

Lets look at one I know he has wrong just to prove my point. Chicago Bears Total: 375, 7 TDs not by the offense, 375 -42 = 333 - 7 (assuming all had 1 point extra points) = 326 which is not 357........

You guys will have to do better than that. All the smack with no backing it up. I have a full list of these but I cant find it now. I will look for it again later.

Edit: Forgot the link. Look at the Bears scoring totals yourself. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/stats?team=chi&year=2008 The hate is funny. Do facts really hurt you guys that much? I am not being negative showing what is real... You all cry like 5 year olds. Why should I even have to prove it or be the bad guy? He used the wrong stat. I just pointed it out.

Dagmar
09-28-2009, 07:18 PM
This message is hidden because jhns is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

;)

Bob's your Information Minister
09-28-2009, 07:34 PM
Last year's team had a quarterback.

This year you have a bum who is going to be exposed as your slide starts.

DenverBrit
09-28-2009, 07:58 PM
Unlike Denver, KC has a franchise QB....at least he's paid like one and is a winner.....well in NE, with your cute coach.

But as you all remember, I was Fraidy Croyle's biggest cheerleader.....literally, so I know about QBs and stuff.

Did I tell you how Branden Albert is going to be a better LT than Clady? I did right?

See, I was right about that too.

I'm on a roll!


Eat it!!

SonOfLe-loLang
09-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Last year's team had a quarterback.

This year you have a bum who is going to be exposed as your slide starts.

I can feel the panic in your typing. Its pretty funny.

broncowill
09-28-2009, 08:09 PM
now we have a defense and we are not relying on one player to win or lose the game for us

sutoazul
09-28-2009, 08:13 PM
People are talking about a better Offense last year, but they're forgetting this is a team with a NEW system and have just played 3 games together. That's some of the reason that our D has played so good as well, our opponents' offense have not jell yet (especially Cincy, Oak and Cle suck anyways).
I think as we move foward in this season the offense will just get better and better. I still think Orton is not as bad as people think, in Chicago he was just there to hand off the ball and they wanted him to score only when they were down. In Denver is different, we have a more balance O and playmakers in the skill positions.
I like that we have not seen this offense explode yet.

enjolras
09-28-2009, 08:58 PM
Wow, I think my head just almost exploded. Last year we were able to keep up with two Offensive powerhouses even though we had no D. We also blew out a ****ty OAK team.

This year our O looked downright feeble for 1.5 of the 3 games we played. There is no way we would be 3-0 right now w/o our revamped D.

Huh? Of course we're 3-0 because of the D, where the hell did I claim otherwise? I'm arguing that this years team is better than last years. Line up the 08 Broncos against the 09 Broncos at this juncture in the season...this years team wins and its not close. It's a much more balanced team that can effectively run the ball, shut other teams down, and is 100% better on special teams (particularly coverage units).

What the hell is even controversial about that?

Broncomutt
09-28-2009, 09:05 PM
Conditioning.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 09:15 PM
You guys will have to do better than that.


I got my data from Yahoo and it indeed shows what I had (no typo on my part):
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byteam?group=Defense&cat=Total&conference=NFL&year=season_2008&sort=530&old_category=Total&old_group=Offense

But I looked at Chicago's actual results and see more than the 3.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt move us to 15. What about the other 5 spots?

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:18 PM
No different than a "Hail Mary Pass" by a Noodle Arm Qb named Kyle Orton.ROFL!

There is a difference in a lucky play and straight up blown call. I have learned though you are too dumb to realize that though.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:19 PM
I got my data from Yahoo and it indeed shows what I had (no typo on my part):
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byteam?group=Defense&cat=Total&conference=NFL&year=season_2008&sort=530&old_category=Total&old_group=Offense

But I looked at Chicago's actual results and see more than the 3.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt move us to 15. What about the other 5 spots?

Sorry, you are right then. Our D and special teams did just as good as every other team last year even though we were one turnover from the least ever. Oh, but I forgot all the kick and punt return TDs we had, thats right.....

I'm sorry but you guys aren't using the right stat. It isn't saying anything bad about this years team. I'm not sure why it is so offensive to everyone here.

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:26 PM
WRONG.... 16th is a team stat. Take out defensive and special teams TDs for the league and we are top 10 in scoring. I'm not going to get into an argument about the offenses again but just correcting your info. We don't have an efficient offense right now though. We still have a lot of work to do in the red zone and in the passing game.

You have already been worked over on this argument before. I love how you only adjust Denver's stats for your argument instead of adjusting everyone's before opening your mouth. Denver had a good between the 20's O and average to below average redzone O last year. You Butler's love to make the offense sound like it was something it wasn't.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:28 PM
You have already been worked over on this argument before. I love how you only adjust Denver's stats for your argument instead of adjusting everyone's before opening your mouth. Denver had a good between the 20's O and average to below average redzone O last year. You Butler's love to make the offense sound like it was something it wasn't.

LOL....

You guys use wrong stats and get mad at me for saying you are using wrong stats? Why don't you use correct stats and I won't have to say anything. Why is it on me to prove it? I have shown he is using wrong stats. If you have to lie to yourself to convince yourself of something, you don't really believe it. Just saying.

I have shown a lot. A lot of you doing the talking have brought nothing to this. I'm not real sure why you think you have room to talk.... That excludes hdtech who actually tried to prove something.

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:35 PM
LOL....

You guys use wrong stats and get mad at me for saying you are using wrong stats? Why don't you use correct stats and I won't have to say anything. Why is it on me to prove it? I have shown he is using wrong stats. If you have to lie to yourself to convince yourself of something, you don't really believe it. Just saying.

I have broke it down for you before. It takes 3 to 4 weeks for teams to get a good solid gameplan for the offense they are going up against. Denver averaged 20 ppg after week 3 and used the first 3 weeks for stat spewers to use as arguments.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:37 PM
I have broke it down for you before. It takes 3 to 4 weeks for teams to get a good solid gameplan for the offense they are going up against. Denver averaged 20 ppg after week 3 and used the first 3 weeks for stat spewers to use as arguments.

Good one. Almost brought some facts even.

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:38 PM
LOL....

You guys use wrong stats and get mad at me for saying you are using wrong stats? Why don't you use correct stats and I won't have to say anything. Why is it on me to prove it? I have shown he is using wrong stats. If you have to lie to yourself to convince yourself of something, you don't really believe it. Just saying.

I have shown a lot. A lot of you doing the talking have brought nothing to this. I'm not real sure why you think you have room to talk.... That excludes hdtech who actually tried to prove something.

I broke it down for you a couple months ago in another thread and I am not going to do it again.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:39 PM
I broke it down for you a couple months ago in another thread and I am not going to do it again.

Find your post? What was our exact offensive scoring rank?

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 09:41 PM
I got my data from Yahoo and it indeed shows what I had (no typo on my part):
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byteam?group=Defense&cat=Total&conference=NFL&year=season_2008&sort=530&old_category=Total&old_group=Offense

But I looked at Chicago's actual results and see more than the 3.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt move us to 15. What about the other 5 spots?

I just went and looked at the four teams above us on your list. Those four all finished better if you use the correct stats. That is the last time quote you for factual information.

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:47 PM
Find your post? What was our exact offensive scoring rank?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2545642#post2545642

I have never given an exact number but said the offense was overrated. Using any formula you will see Denver is right around 16 give or take a couple spots.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:50 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2545642#post2545642

I have never given an exact number but said the offense was overrated. Using any formula you will see Denver is right around 16 give or take a couple spots.

Yeah, facts are overrated. I get it. I use them and everyone puts me on ignore. Maybe that is my problem. I can't just spew random stuff and think it is a great argument.

baja
09-28-2009, 09:53 PM
Yeah, facts are overrated. I get it. I use them and everyone puts me on ignore. Maybe that is my problem. I can't just spew random stuff and think it is a great argument.

Admitting the problem is half the battle.

azbroncfan
09-28-2009, 09:54 PM
Yeah, facts are overrated. I get it. I use them and everyone puts me on ignore. Maybe that is my problem. I can't just spew random stuff and think it is a great argument.

No nobody takes you serious because all you do is suck off the Cutler/shanny team and use stats to argue with just like Bob does.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 09:56 PM
I just went and looked at the four teams above us on your list. Those four all finished better if you use the correct stats. That is the last time quote you for factual information.

If they finished better, then doesnt that keep Denver in the teens? I only validated Chicago.

But based on Yahoo, Chicago did indeed have more non offensive touchdown than their sortable stats would indicate. I count 7, 4 on defense and 3 on special teams. So it does beg the question if they are wrong for just about every team. I will look into a few more.

Edit: Just checked Atlanta and count 3 Def and 1 ST. So that is 12 less pts which still puts them ahead of the Broncos.

Moral of the story: don't believe Yahoo's stats.

jhns
09-28-2009, 09:59 PM
No nobody takes you serious because all you do is suck off the Cutler/shanny team and use stats to argue with just like Bob does.

LOL

See what I mean? You guys get offended because we had a good offense. I haven't even argued anything other than that is the wrong stat. I never said anything bad about this year. Why are you guys so upset about that? I don't get it.

You all are right. We won 8 games with the teams worst ever defense, a bad special teams, and a below average offense that did nothing but make mistakes......

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 09:59 PM
If they finished better, then doesnt that keep Denver in the teens? I only validated Chicago.

But based on Yahoo, Chicago did indeed have more non offensive touchdown than their sortable stats would indicate. I count 7, 4 on defense and 3 on special teams. So it does beg the question if they are wrong for just about every team. I will look into a few more.

I stopped at four.

broncos-rock
09-28-2009, 09:59 PM
I think the biggest thing is that last year we would have found ways to let teams back in games and this year we are closing the door on them. Making a play when we need too!

jutang
09-28-2009, 10:00 PM
My expectations are much lower this season compared to last.

Last year prior to the KC game I was drinking the Kool-Aid the the '08 offense would put New England like numbers and Cutler would be named MVP. Suddenly, defenses found ways to stop the offense, every RB went down with injury, and the Broncos D somehow got even worse.

So far these Broncos really remind of the Reeves era (positive aspects). Great defense, ball control offense that isn't pretty, but gets it done. Too bad last yrs O couldn't be combined with this yrs D.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 10:06 PM
I stopped at four.

Which 4?

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 10:09 PM
Which 4?
The first ones in-between the Broncos and #1.

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 10:18 PM
LOL
You all are right. We won 8 games with the teams worst ever defense, a bad special teams, and a below average offense that did nothing but make mistakes......

So your basic point I take it is that we actually had a good offense last year. Good at putting up yards but not scoring

You should look at stats like being the only team EVER to be top 5 (correction: top 2) in yards but not in the top 10 in scoring (#11 if you take away Def and ST, #16 in pure points), worst red zone QB rating, #2 int from a starting QB, etc, etc.

Lev Vyvanse
09-28-2009, 10:21 PM
So your basic point I take it is that we actually had a good offense last year. Good at putting up yards but not scoring

You should look at stats like being the only team EVER to be top 5 in yards but not in the top 10 in scoring (so you say we are #10), worst red zone QB rating, #2 int from a starting QB, etc, etc.

Link? Not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust you.

Edit: Holy **** dude. Houston 2008 3rd yards and 17th scoring . Are you ever right?

bronco militia
09-28-2009, 10:26 PM
jay cutler wasn't a douche in 2008

Br0nc0Buster
09-28-2009, 10:29 PM
We are playing better overall team football, the offense is complimenting the defense, and visa versa

Last year it was "hey watch the offense move the ball up and down the field only to have the opposing offense do the same to us all game long"

This year the defense is much better, and while the offense hasnt been lighting up the scoreboards, they didnt punt till the 4th quarter last game, they are playing solid and efficient

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 10:30 PM
Link? Not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust you.

Edit: Holy **** dude. Houston 2008. Are you ever right?

Sorry. I meant top 2 in yards. I was just reciting from memory and that obviously wasnt right.

but the Houston point is well taken. They were 3rd in yards and 17th in points or 16th if you take away Def and ST

Finger Roll
09-28-2009, 10:31 PM
Jay "no suprise our defense can't stop anybody" Cutler wasn't a douche last year?

Jekyll15Hyde
09-28-2009, 10:34 PM
I stopped at four.

And to clear up the stats for 2008, eliminating Yahoo as the source for Def and ST TDs does indeed drive Denver up to 11th in scoring.

broncocalijohn
09-28-2009, 10:48 PM
jay cutler wasn't a douche in 2008

Oh yes he was but 96% of you guys (sorry JHNS and other stat hounds, I dont have a link) had no problems with Jay. I took the offseason to shed the light. On another note, the thread somehow (like it never does) went into another direction. The reason I started the thread was to have you ask yourself how you felt about last year's team after 3 weeks with this team. Many changed their Win-loss for the better after 3 weeks. Are you doing the same this time or did you felt burnt by the prejaculation of a playoff team in 08 and are at a wait and see. But hell with that, go on to the stat arguments that hasnt been played out here before.

BroncoMan4ever
09-28-2009, 11:50 PM
plain and simple, we are balanced. we are good in all phases of the game. ST are no longer weak, defense doesn't suck, our QB isn't turning the ball over all the damn time, we have a legit running game. we have balance and are playing as a team.

BroncoBuff
09-29-2009, 12:36 AM
Which team last year started 2-0 or 3-0 and finished 5-11?

Can't see that for us, we look like this year's Dolphins. So far.

lex
09-29-2009, 12:39 AM
Similarities would be the same start with one "lucky" win. To me, we had a tougher schedule after three games last year but we all pretty much had a feeling that we would need to be like Don Coryell's Chargers to win (last one who scores wins). Our start of the offense totally clicking worked well to start but we fizzled in both offense and defense (offense at points where we should have dominated). This year, we havent made many mistakes on both sides of the ball (a few gimme FGs and Hillis fumble on ST), but our offense has been more "vanilla" and safe (may I say we played it safer with Plummer in 05 and had pretty good results), but can it beat teams with a powerfull offense and much better defense than we have seen in teams like the Browns (once again, we did beat the Raiders that had a good D). I did a poll after week 2 and the opinion is we are going 3 and 3 (started with a win in Oakland). With optomist predictions between 7 and 9 and 9 and 7, would you feel better than last year if we hit this range? Lot of juice in the above opinions/statements but we were way off last year and I want to know if this start was expected and if opinions for a better record or even a playoff berth is now likely. I had us at 8-8 and thinking 9-7 at least can be based on our great D and other "great" teams arent as great as expected.


If Buckhalter, Moreno, and Hillis go down with injuries similar to what happened last year (although the RBs last year werent as good) it could turn south in a hurry...like last year.

Archer81
09-29-2009, 01:05 AM
The offense doesnt seem as hurried if they dont score every drive. The tension seems to be missing, like they HAVE to get 7 every time out, thats a difference from last year.

:Broncos:

Killericon
09-29-2009, 01:32 AM
2008:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8986/avvyv.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/i/avvyv.jpg/)

2009:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8320/defew.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/defew.jpg/)

Trivia Time! Two of the three teams seen in my post were coached by WHAT NFL coach?

Cito Pelon
09-29-2009, 01:53 AM
Jay was an irritating factor locally in 2008.

Rock Chalk put up on this board the ESPN poll when the trade was announced, and Colorado was the only state that thought it was a good trade. Read into that what you want to.

UberBroncoMan
09-29-2009, 03:02 AM
We beat 2 good teams last time around.... Chargers and Saints....

We could move the ball at will.... but I guess this time, we seem to stopping the other team at will...

We were an aerial attack last time with no ground game.... we seem to be run heavy this time....

We had a much easier schedule last time... at least on paper, we didnt have 4 teams coming off bye weeks..... and no early road games on the east coast....

I guess the joker in the pack is if our D this year is for real and can actually perform against high powered offenses like the Colts, Cowgirls, Chuggers, etc.... or if it a 2006 rehash....

Christ... I never knew that. Holy ****ing gay ****.

errand
09-29-2009, 05:50 AM
the difference between last year's 3-0 team and this year's?

Last year's team didn't have fans posting on the OM bitching about them after a win.

broncogary
09-29-2009, 05:57 AM
the difference between last year's 3-0 team and this year's?

Last year's team didn't have fans posting on the OM b****ing about them after a win.

Obviously you weren't here much last year. ROFL!

broncocalijohn
09-29-2009, 11:51 AM
If Buckhalter, Moreno, and Hillis go down with injuries similar to what happened last year (although the RBs last year werent as good) it could turn south in a hurry...like last year.

and you think our tank job was based mostly on the RBs? Many of those fill ins had decent stats. Say it with me Lex. Defense and Slowick coaching cost us the playoffs. You really need to admit it. Shanny and Turner can make lemonade out of lemons with many runners over the years. For the most part of 16 games, we managed in the running department. Cutler at least could throw a full game. This year, yes we would be in trouble based on the type of QB we have now and with the defense now, Orton would have more ops to make some mistakes but that is based on many more pass attempts and longer throws needed to make first downs.

Kaylore
10-02-2009, 12:43 PM
This year our average margin of victory is 15 points. Our defense, special teams and offense are all top ten.

And those that say the offense is "way worse" this year are wrong. We're turning the ball over less and we're 14th in scoring, which is two spots higher than last year, and had Prater not crapped his pants against the Browns likely would be higher.

Punisher
10-02-2009, 12:47 PM
I tell you at the end of the season, but Defense with a solid running game wins you championships.

Beantown Bronco
10-02-2009, 12:48 PM
And those that say the offense is "way worse" this year are wrong. We're turning the ball over less and we're 14th in scoring, which is two spots higher than last year

If we're just comparing this year's team after week three to last year's after week three, which the OP called for, then this isn't accurate. I believe we were #1 in scoring after week three last year.

ColoradoDarin
10-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Difference? How about we "should" have been 1-2 last year and we "should" be 2-1 this year. Yeah the SD game was over if Hochuli makes the correct call, but the Saints game last year, we needed a missed FG to win as well.

bronco militia
10-02-2009, 01:25 PM
what is different about this 09 3-0 team and last year's 3-0 team?

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Hochuli-Decapitates.jpg

Kaylore
10-02-2009, 02:25 PM
If we're just comparing this year's team after week three to last year's after week three, which the OP called for, then this isn't accurate. I believe we were #1 in scoring after week three last year.

That's fine then. Our margin of victory is still better. Our ST teams coverage last year would have given Cribbs and the Browns a TD and a few field goals purely on field position alone. In fact Brady Quinn looked awesome against us last year and so did Fatty thanks to Slowit. We still are turning the ball over less than last year after three games. I'll take winning by three TD's and a 14th ranked offense over a number one offense with a one point win and a worthless D.

lex
10-02-2009, 02:42 PM
and you think our tank job was based mostly on the RBs? Many of those fill ins had decent stats. Say it with me Lex. Defense and Slowick coaching cost us the playoffs. You really need to admit it. Shanny and Turner can make lemonade out of lemons with many runners over the years. For the most part of 16 games, we managed in the running department. Cutler at least could throw a full game. This year, yes we would be in trouble based on the type of QB we have now and with the defense now, Orton would have more ops to make some mistakes but that is based on many more pass attempts and longer throws needed to make first downs.

Yeah, I do think losing RBs was a big part of it. When we had Hillis getting significant time at RB, beginning with the Cleveland game, we were 4-1. After he was injured, it was kind of rough waters.

Peoples Champ
10-02-2009, 02:51 PM
a lot

Rock Chalk
10-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Funny, that's roughly when the running game started to go south and the offense became one dimensional.

Not true.

THe offense was one dimensional out of the gate.

Bates made sure of it. We were so pass heavy even when we didn't need to be. Our RBs last year, all 7 of them, averaged over 4 ypc but we never ran the ball. NO confidence OR too much confidence in Cutler OR what I think is more likely, new toy to play with so lets play with it and forget what wins ball games.

Offense last year was horribly predictable and grossly misused.

Beyond the scripted plays Shanahan had at the beginnings of the games, our offense mostly was **** after those first three games because Bates was an incompetent OC. I truly believe had Bates been anywhere NEAR the offensive guru that well, a potato is, then the offense would have been far more consistent throughout the year and Cutler probably would have improved instead of regressed.

Hell we might have even made the playoffs and had the honor of getting our asses kicked instead of San Diego.