PDA

View Full Version : Massive Offensive Decline


Pages : [1] 2

Popps
12-29-2009, 07:15 PM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.

Archer81
12-29-2009, 07:19 PM
Homer! Mcgenius is a fraud, and i know the players dont trust him!:flower:

:Broncos:

Dukes
12-29-2009, 07:21 PM
How much is McD paying you for this propaganda Popps?

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 07:22 PM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.

If you have time, it would also be nice to see what kind of scoring defenses we faced this year vs. last year. I'm willing to bet that has as big an impact on our offensive "struggles" as anything.

Kaylore
12-29-2009, 07:28 PM
If you have time, it would also be nice to see what kind of scoring defenses we faced this year vs. last year. I'm willing to bet that has as big an impact on our offensive "struggles" as anything.

How DARE you suggest logical things like strength of opponent? How dare you even mention we played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL this year. You sir, are an apologist! Fire McDaniels! Cutler would have taken us to the Super Bowl!!!!!! ROAWOWRWWWOOWOW!!!!!

Popps
12-29-2009, 07:35 PM
Yea, I mean... it's been an "epic collapse."

(Trying to remember some of the other phrases I've heard over the past few days.)


I'm just looking for any sort of proof. I'm sure it's true. After all, people have repeated it enough. It must be.

azbroncfan
12-29-2009, 07:41 PM
Popps you didn't mention about how many points the Bronco's scored in first three games to make the scoring average look much better than it was.

Hotwheelz
12-29-2009, 07:42 PM
I think the perception is a result of the QB. For all his flaws, Cutler was flashy as hell and made some great plays. So it at least felt like we could score at any time, even though we were terribly inconsistent.

seanpgk
12-29-2009, 07:49 PM
Yea, I mean... it's been an "epic collapse."

(Trying to remember some of the other phrases I've heard over the past few days.)


I'm just looking for any sort of proof. I'm sure it's true. After all, people have repeated it enough. It must be.

3 game division lead blown - 2008

3.5 game division lead blown - 2009

I would say that's a bigger overall collapse than last year. Offensively? Who knows? Your stats you picked don't support an "epic" collapse, you're right. I am curious to see how many 3-and-outs we had in 2009 vs 2008 though. Just not curious enough to dig them up ;D

jhns
12-29-2009, 07:56 PM
Those are team stats, not offensive stats. We would also be 12th compared to 19th if we had those stats this year. That is with a lot less help from the defense and special teams on the score board and a lot less help from them in field position. Oh yeah, that team was also younger.

Popps
12-29-2009, 08:00 PM
Those are team stats, not offensive stats. We would also be 12th compared to 19th if we had those stats this year. That is with a lot less help from the defense and special teams on the score board and a lot less help from them in field position. Oh yeah, that team was also younger.

But, wouldn't less help from the defense naturally lead to more offensive yards, and probably even more scoring, since you'd be playing from behind... and against teams that might be letting up on you with a lead?

Either way, that's just speculation.

The facts are what they are.

None of them support a "massive decline" on offense from last year to this year.

Popps
12-29-2009, 08:01 PM
Those are team stats

Although, if you're suggesting that we might have put together a more balanced team, I suppose you could be onto something...

baja
12-29-2009, 08:02 PM
Yea, I mean... it's been an "epic collapse."

(Trying to remember some of the other phrases I've heard over the past few days.)


I'm just looking for any sort of proof. I'm sure it's true. After all, people have repeated it enough. It must be.


The whiners don't know what they are looking at on the field they only attach their feelings to the score board, win feel good - lose feel bad, that's their game.

They don't even notice the cutler team quit last year and they fail to see this team was in every game and played every play. They will get better.

I give McD a C+ for his rookie year, same for Moreno. They both will get better, a lot better.

jhns
12-29-2009, 08:02 PM
Although, if you're suggesting that we might have put together a more balanced team, I suppose you could be onto something...

I can agree with that.

steeledude
12-29-2009, 08:03 PM
Once again Popps you just put words into people's mouths to suit your arguments. We all agree, the scoring is about the same (though we were better last year) and I'm pretty sure we all agreed at the end of last season that scoring was an issue to be corrected.

We had one of the highest offenses in the league otherwise in terms of production outside of scoring. Really we had two issues to work on on offense, that was limiting turnovers and scoring in the redzone. We had one of the best rushing attacks in the league despite starting 7 running backs, the passing game was on fire, and the offensive line blocking was amazing.

So instead of turnovers and scoring the redzone, we now have issues with the o-line, with passing, and with rushing.

The decline is there. Do you see it now? Pull up your stats on that and then discuss it.

TonyR
12-29-2009, 08:03 PM
How DARE you suggest logical things like strength of opponent? How dare you even mention we played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL this year.

As I've been posting elsewhere, per Sagarin we played the 3rd easiest schedule last year compared to the 7th most difficult so far this year.

steeledude
12-29-2009, 08:05 PM
How DARE you suggest logical things like strength of opponent? How dare you even mention we played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL this year. You sir, are an apologist! Fire McDaniels! Cutler would have taken us to the Super Bowl!!!!!! ROAWOWRWWWOOWOW!!!!!

You rise to the occasion or you don't Spock.

TonyR
12-29-2009, 08:06 PM
The decline is there.

I agree there has been a decline, it's just not nearly as pronounced as some of the drama queens/widows/haters say. Our defense has improved considerably more than our offense has declined.

steeledude
12-29-2009, 08:09 PM
I agree there has been a decline, it's just not nearly as pronounced as some of the drama queens/widows/haters say. Our defense has improved considerably more than our offense has declined.

I guess I haven't seen the term "massive decline" or "epic decline". Hell, I guess I could have even used it as I am prone to hyperbole in my arguments. But I think that both sides of this argument are ignoring vital bits of information from the oppositions viewpoint thus resulting in the same arguments being rehashed over and over. I guess it's fun because we get pages of discussion out of it.

baja
12-29-2009, 08:09 PM
Once again Popps you just put words into people's mouths to suit your arguments. We all agree, the scoring is about the same (though we were better last year) and I'm pretty sure we all agreed at the end of last season that scoring was an issue to be corrected.

We had one of the highest offenses in the league otherwise in terms of production outside of scoring. Really we had two issues to work on on offense, that was limiting turnovers and scoring in the redzone. We had one of the best rushing attacks in the league despite starting 7 running backs, the passing game was on fire, and the offensive line blocking was amazing.

So instead of turnovers and scoring the redzone, we now have issues with the o-line, with passing, and with rushing.

The decline is there. Do you see it now? Pull up your stats on that and then discuss it.

of course there was a decline we are in the first year of a complete rebuild what did you expect?

How many games did you say we'd win at the beginning of the season?

I said 10 looks like 9 I'm OK with this season but McD better show much improvement next season. I give him a C+ this year

steeledude
12-29-2009, 08:10 PM
of course there was a decline we are in the first year of a complete rebuild what did you expect?

How many games did you say we'd win at the beginning of the season?

I said 10 looks like 9 I'm OK with this season but McD better show much improvement next season. I give him a C+ this year

I predicted 4 or 5 wins. I guess my argument is that we'd be better off with Cutler, despite his epic collapse in Chicago.

Popps
12-29-2009, 08:11 PM
I agree there has been a decline, it's just not nearly as pronounced as some of the drama queens/widows/haters say. Our defense has improved considerably more than our offense has declined.

That's right.

There has been a very minor decline in scoring output, offset by considerably less turnovers.

I think it's one thing to say that our offense needs to get better. We all can agree, there.

It's another all together to imply a "massive decline."

That's a plain old myth.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 08:12 PM
If you have time, it would also be nice to see what kind of scoring defenses we faced this year vs. last year. I'm willing to bet that has as big an impact on our offensive "struggles" as anything.

I decided to look it up. Last year we faced the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15x2, 16, 18, 21, 24x2, 26, 29x2 ranked scoring defenses that gave up an average of 22.5 points per game. This year we faced the 2, 3x2, 4, 5, 7, 12x3, 16x2, 23x3, 28, 30x2 ranked scoring defenses that allowed an average of 19.6 points per game. We also tended to play the top teams when they were at as close to full strength as they were all year, specifically PIT and BAL.

Last year we played 2 defenses that allowed 20 or fewer points per game (19.3 and 19.8 ppg) this year we've played 8 games against teams that allowed 20 or fewer (16.5, 16.7x2, 16.9, 18.5, 20x3 ppg).

Last year our offense bested our opponent's average points per game given up 7 times, we have matched that so far this year.

Take that as you want, but we faced a much harder defensive schedule this year. In fact, it can be pretty much directly attributed to 2 of the 3 lost points in per game average.

55CrushEm
12-29-2009, 08:32 PM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh............Popps, facts aren't allowed here. Your post might make broncofraud7's head explode.

yavoon
12-29-2009, 08:45 PM
I think the perception is a result of the QB. For all his flaws, Cutler was flashy as hell and made some great plays. So it at least felt like we could score at any time, even though we were terribly inconsistent.

I agree there is terrible selection bias in denver towards any qb who can run and any qb w/ a strong arm.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 08:53 PM
I agree there is terrible selection bias in denver towards any qb who can run and any qb w/ a strong arm.

Which is unfortunate since those qualities are not universally present in the top 10 QBs in the league and really only Rodgers, McNabb and to some extent Rothelisberger have both qualities. There are a lot of really good QBs that have good, not great arms, and below average mobility.

On a side note: I really wish we had Rodgers as our QB.

gyldenlove
12-29-2009, 08:57 PM
A 15% drop in points scored is not a big deal?

Popps
12-29-2009, 09:02 PM
A 15% drop in points scored is not a big deal?

A FG per game, and considerably less turnover?

No.

Now, had we been putting up 33 a game? Sure, that's a major decline.

A FG and taking better care?

No.

Again, the answer is... our offense needs to improve. It needed to improve last year, as well.

So, this notion of a "major slide" can be put to rest.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 09:04 PM
A 15% drop in points scored is not a big deal?

Not as big of a deal as people make it out to be since 2/3 of that 15% is due to a much harder defensive schedule.

55CrushEm
12-29-2009, 09:04 PM
I'm just curious as to why broncofraud7 has nothing to say on this thread....hmmm.

Oh yeah.....it has facts and those facts don't fit his agenda. That and the fact he's a DOUCHE!

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 09:05 PM
I'm just curious as to why broncofraud7 has nothing to say on this thread....hmmm.

Oh yeah.....it has facts and those facts don't fit his agenda. That and the fact he's a DOUCHE!

bpc is also noticeably absent. Weird.

OBF1
12-29-2009, 09:11 PM
This must be a douchebag free thread :)

gyldenlove
12-29-2009, 09:25 PM
A FG per game, and considerably less turnover?

No.

Now, had we been putting up 33 a game? Sure, that's a major decline.

A FG and taking better care?

No.

Again, the answer is... our offense needs to improve. It needed to improve last year, as well.

So, this notion of a "major slide" can be put to rest.

So despite hiring an offensive mastermind, genious he has even been called, signing 2 running backs and drafting another in the 1st round, signing 2 WRs and drafting another, drafting a TE, signing and trading for 2 offensive linemen and trading for a QB we have gotten worse? So what did we do all that for?

15%, over the 15 games we have played that means we could score 23 points per game, just like last year in 13 games, and score 0 in the last two and there you have our average for this year. Essentially we have "lost" two winnable games by our decline on offense. Even if you spread out the points over every game, the 1 point defeat to the Raiders, a win, the 3 point defeat to the Eagles, a win or at least potential win. Do you still claim that the 15% is not big? it is the difference between being 8-7 and 9-6 at the very least, that seems like a big difference to me.

I agree our offense needs to improve, it needs to improve to get back to where it was a year ago, and even more to get better than that.

HEAV
12-29-2009, 09:34 PM
Shhhhhhhhhhhh............Popps, facts aren't allowed here. Your post might make broncofraud7's head explode.

Nah the steriods he takes will do that before a post does...






Great work Popps... but the haters still will hate. No matter what.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 10:03 PM
So despite hiring an offensive mastermind, genious he has even been called, signing 2 running backs and drafting another in the 1st round, signing 2 WRs and drafting another, drafting a TE, signing and trading for 2 offensive linemen and trading for a QB we have gotten worse? So what did we do all that for?

15%, over the 15 games we have played that means we could score 23 points per game, just like last year in 13 games, and score 0 in the last two and there you have our average for this year. Essentially we have "lost" two winnable games by our decline on offense. Even if you spread out the points over every game, the 1 point defeat to the Raiders, a win, the 3 point defeat to the Eagles, a win or at least potential win. Do you still claim that the 15% is not big? it is the difference between being 8-7 and 9-6 at the very least, that seems like a big difference to me.

I agree our offense needs to improve, it needs to improve to get back to where it was a year ago, and even more to get better than that.

Once again, we have a 10% decrease in our offensive output that is directly attributable to the schedule we have faced.

One could easily argue that declining play and injuries on the offensive line could account for some if not all of that additional 5% and that a complete scheme change for all but a couple backups on offense could also contribute to that. It wouldn't matter how good or bad our offense was last year, these things will decrease any offense's production unless the previous scheme was an abject failure.

We need to improve our offensive output, no doubt, but this offense is barely worse than it was last year. It should see a decent jump in production simply due to getting back injured players, having another year in the system, having an easier schedule (it's unlikely that we could have a harder one to score against), and adding some offensive linemen that fit the system better.

Popps
12-29-2009, 10:07 PM
So despite hiring an offensive mastermind, genious bla bla bla bla.....

No, no, no.

We're not talking about circumstantial bull****.

We're not talking about what if's.

We're talking about factual information.

The factual information at hand here is that there HAS BEEN NO "massive" decline of any sort.

Net-net, our offensive output is on par with last season.

We've finished the 2nd half with more points.

We're playing closer games in the 2nd half.

We turn the ball over less.

Those are facts. The rest is just hot ****ing air.

Florida_Bronco
12-29-2009, 10:10 PM
Great thread Popps. Simply excellent.

Taco John
12-29-2009, 10:13 PM
It seems to me like this argument is a double edged sword.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 10:18 PM
It seems to me like this argument is a double edged sword.

How so?

tsiguy96
12-29-2009, 10:24 PM
we only had 6 interceptions last year.

Popps
12-29-2009, 10:29 PM
It seems to me like this argument is a double edged sword.

Not if you look at it reasonably.

A reasonable person looks at it for what it is. The offense hasn't changed much in terms of output from last year, but takes better care of the ball.

The defense and STs have improved.

We're a more balanced team.


We lost our last three games last season by a margin of 57 points.

Right now, our margin for the last three is 4, I believe? I suspect that margin will turn positive next week.


All that aside, it's pretty straight forward.

We need to improve the offense.

However, there was no "big decline" of any sort.

That's a myth, plain and simple.

Popps
12-29-2009, 10:30 PM
we only had 6 interceptions last year.

Bull****!

Cutler had that many in one game!


:)

PaintballCLE
12-29-2009, 10:36 PM
now while im the biggest MCD supporter out there (yes even more than popps) these stats are a little skewed.........because it doesnt take into acount return points (ala royal) and defensive scores..........just pointing that out.

So i think ppg are about the same, but the offense has scored less of them.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 10:43 PM
now while im the biggest MCD supporter out there (yes even more than popps) these stats are a little skewed.........because it doesnt take into acount return points (ala royal) and defensive scores..........just pointing that out.

So i think ppg are about the same, but the offense has scored less of them.

True, but in producing those points, they took away a possession in which the offense may have scored. It certainly helps explain the disparity in yards vs. scoring from last year to this year though.

HAT
12-29-2009, 10:44 PM
This must be a douchebag free thread :)

Way break the streak there big guy. :wiggle:

d:-)

Florida_Bronco
12-29-2009, 10:50 PM
now while im the biggest MCD supporter out there (yes even more than popps) these stats are a little skewed.........because it doesnt take into acount return points (ala royal) and defensive scores..........just pointing that out.

So i think ppg are about the same, but the offense has scored less of them.

There is only a 1 touchdown difference if I'm remembering correctly.

2008: 2 fumbles returned for touchdowns on defense.

2009: Fumble, punt and kick return for touchdown.

DBroncos4life
12-29-2009, 11:02 PM
Red Zone attempts per game 2008 3.4 2009 2.9 Down
Red Zone score per game 2008 1.9 2009 1.3 Down
Red Zone scoring percentage 2008 54.5% 2009 45.5% Down
First downs per game 2008 22 2009 18 Down
Third downs per game 2008 12.5 2009 13.3 Up
Third down conversion per game 2008 5.9 2009 4.7 Down
Third down conversion percentage 2008 47.5% 2009 35.5% Down
Plays per game 2008 63.6 2009 63.5
Yards per play 2008 6.2 2009 5.2
Penalties per game 2008 4.4 2009 5.9

Taco John
12-29-2009, 11:12 PM
now while im the biggest MCD supporter out there (yes even more than popps) these stats are a little skewed.........because it doesnt take into acount return points (ala royal) and defensive scores..........just pointing that out.

So i think ppg are about the same, but the offense has scored less of them.



An interesting point. I wonder how the averages would skew if the defensive scores were eliminated from both seasons.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 11:16 PM
Red Zone attempts per game 2008 3.4 2009 2.9 Down
Red Zone score per game 2008 1.9 2009 1.3 Down
Red Zone scoring percentage 2008 54.5% 2009 45.5% Down
First downs per game 2008 22 2009 18 Down
Third downs per game 2008 12.5 2009 13.3 Up
Third down conversion per game 2008 5.9 2009 4.7 Down
Third down conversion percentage 2008 47.5% 2009 35.5% Down
Plays per game 2008 63.6 2009 63.5
Yards per play 2008 6.2 2009 5.2
Penalties per game 2008 4.4 2009 5.9

Other than the penalties, which of those stats shouldn't have been expected based on the harder defensive schedule?

If any of those stats had improved or even stayed the same this year given a scheme change, a harder schedule and injuries/declining play on the Oline, McD would have deserved coach of the year.

cabronco
12-29-2009, 11:19 PM
Red Zone attempts per game 2008 3.4 2009 2.9 Down
Red Zone score per game 2008 1.9 2009 1.3 Down
Red Zone scoring percentage 2008 54.5% 2009 45.5% Down
First downs per game 2008 22 2009 18 Down
Third downs per game 2008 12.5 2009 13.3 Up
Third down conversion per game 2008 5.9 2009 4.7 Down
Third down conversion percentage 2008 47.5% 2009 35.5% Down
Plays per game 2008 63.6 2009 63.5
Yards per play 2008 6.2 2009 5.2
Penalties per game 2008 4.4 2009 5.9


This stat stands out the most, on paper and in my mind. There wasnt much success on 3rd and short this year for sure. Or in long yardage situations, where frankly not sure we had many plays for 3rd and long.

Popps
12-29-2009, 11:24 PM
An interesting point. I wonder how the averages would skew if the defensive scores were eliminated from both seasons.

Right, but then you have to factor in things like time of possession, which is better this year.

You also have to factor in playing from way behind, which we did often last season... which can skew offensive stats.


The point is, we've heard panic and a lot of hand-wringing, but the bottom line is that the offense wasn't great last year, and it's not great this year.

However, it may be more efficient in ways that keep us in ball-games.

Lolad
12-29-2009, 11:27 PM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.

This is deception, you are only point out the "facts" that support your argument. I can do the same.

2008 Offense YPG 395.8 (2nd)
2009 Offense YPG 330.1 (19th)

2008 Offense Passing YPG 279.4 (3rd)
2009 Offense Passing YPG 213.3 (18th)

That was the year we actually used our WR's for something other then 20 bubble screens a game.

2008 3rd Down Conversion Percentage 47.5% (3rd)
2009 3rd Down Conversion Percentage 35.5% (23rd)

This speaks for itself

2008 Red Zone Scoring Percentage 54.5% (16th)
2009 Red Zone Scoring Percentage 45.5% (26th)

Cutler threw picks left and right, went through several RB's but yet we were better last year in the red zone. The emphasis this year was we were going to improve in the red zone... the cliche "2nd in yards but 16th in scoring, we were good in between the 20's" Explain this year.

2008 Takeaways per game 0.8 (32nd)
2009 Takeaways per game 1.9 (8th)

So we are getting the ball back @ least 2 times more then last year but yet we can't even score more points? Then the argument is we played some tough defenses... Ok we have but how is the Chargers who've played pretty much the same teams as us able to score 28.7 ppg? Without a damn running game.

Popps
12-29-2009, 11:30 PM
This is deception, you are only point out the "facts" that support your argument. I can do the same.


I'm just putting out the facts that clearly disprove a "massive offensive decline."

Were we better in some areas last year? Sure.

Were we worse?

Sure.

But, there was no "massive decline."

It's a figment of your imagination. We played from behind a lot and flung the ball around. It was smoke and mirrors, and hence... we wound up in the middle of the pack at putting points on on the board.

As for it being a "team effort," I'm with you. It sure is... and our current team model lends to a much more successful brand of football.

orangemonkey
12-29-2009, 11:34 PM
This is deception, you are only point out the "facts" that support your argument. I can do the same.

2008 Offense YPG 395.8 (2nd)
2009 Offense YPG 330.1 (19th)

2008 Offense Passing YPG 279.4 (3rd)
2009 Offense Passing YPG 213.3 (18th)

That was the year we actually used our WR's for something other then 20 bubble screens a game.

2008 3rd Down Conversion Percentage 47.5% (3rd)
2009 3rd Down Conversion Percentage 35.5% (23rd)

This speaks for itself

2008 Red Zone Scoring Percentage 54.5% (16th)
2009 Red Zone Scoring Percentage 45.5% (26th)

Cutler threw picks left and right, went through several RB's but yet we were better last year in the red zone. The emphasis this year was we were going to improve in the red zone... the cliche "2nd in yards but 16th in scoring, we were good in between the 20's" Explain this year.

2008 Takeaways per game 0.8 (32nd)
2009 Takeaways per game 1.9 (8th)

So we are getting the ball back @ least 2 times more then last year but yet we can't even score more points? Then the argument is we played some tough defenses... Ok we have but how is the Chargers who've played pretty much the same teams as us able to score 28.7 ppg? Without a damn running game.

The takeaway differential stats absolutely blow my mind:

2008 - 13 total takeaways or 32nd in the league (dead last)
2009 - 28 total takeaways or 5th in the league

Wow! Now that is a massive improvement!

DBroncos4life
12-29-2009, 11:34 PM
Right, but then you have to factor in things like time of possession, which is better this year.

You also have to factor in playing from way behind, which we did often last season... which can skew offensive stats.


The point is, we've heard panic and a lot of hand-wringing, but the bottom line is that the offense wasn't great last year, and it's not great this year.

However, it may be more efficient in ways that keep us in ball-games.

Time of possession last year was 28:43 this year it was 29:40. That's less then one minute. How much do you think that skew's the stats?

BigPlayShay
12-29-2009, 11:37 PM
Average margin of defeat:
2008 = 17.87
2009 = 13.71

Average margin of victory
2008 = 8.12
2009 = 13.11

Lolad
12-29-2009, 11:41 PM
I'm just putting out the facts that clearly disprove a "massive offensive decline."

Were we better in some areas last year? Sure.

Were we worse?

Sure.

But, there was no "massive decline."

It's a figment of your imagination. We played from behind a lot and flung the ball around. It was smoke and mirrors, and hence... we wound up in the middle of the pack at putting points on on the board.

As for it being a "team effort," I'm with you. It sure is... and our current team model lends to a much more successful brand of football.

I think some STATS can lead a person to say massive decline. Like 3rd downs. We have been down majority of games this year yet we can't even come close to the 2008 offensive production. There has been a decline.

Of course some of it has been blown out of proportion. Leave out the massive and we can factually say "there has been a decline in offensive production this year"

Popps
12-29-2009, 11:41 PM
Time of possession last year was 28:43 this year it was 29:40. That's less then one minute. How much do you think that skew's the stats?

That's a smaller difference than I would have though. We certainly were better than that at one point. Probably pre-Orton-injury.

That said, everything matters. If people are going to pull circumstantial items into the conversation, then pull it all.

The point here is... a "massive decline" in offense looks something like this...

-10 points or more less per game
-Worse time of possession
-Increased offensive turnovers
-Increased red-zone turnovers

That would imply a massive decline.

Right now, all things considered... you could make an argument that the slight points decline is far outweighed by the brand of football we're playing that keeps us in games, as opposed to slopping the ball into triple coverage every other play.

So, we return to the original point..... IF there is a decline, it's barely measurable, NOT massive... and the IMPACT of that "decline" is highly debatable.

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 11:44 PM
Average margin of defeat:
2008 = 17.87
2009 = 13.71

Average margin of victory
2008 = 8.12
2009 = 13.11

And the winner is...the better TEAM.

PaintballCLE
12-29-2009, 11:46 PM
There is only a 1 touchdown difference if I'm remembering correctly.

2008: 2 fumbles returned for touchdowns on defense.

2009: Fumble, punt and kick return for touchdown.

i think we had a few against KC if im not mistaken too

PaintballCLE
12-29-2009, 11:52 PM
actually.......... i remember reading this somewhere too (dont have the link so don't ask it was a few weeks ago) 2008 average yards on scoring drives....was somewhere around 68 this year it was somewhere around 39......thats a HUGE difference. there can be a number of factors for that..........1. our d was so bad last year we were always pinned back, or 2. we got more td's last year and more fg's this year. 3. we had more turnovers in opponents territory.etc............

misturanderson
12-29-2009, 11:53 PM
2008 Takeaways per game 0.8 (32nd)
2009 Takeaways per game 1.9 (8th)[/B]

So we are getting the ball back @ least 2 times more then last year but yet we can't even score more points?

It's still only 1 more time per game.

Then the argument is we played some tough defenses... Ok we have but how is the Chargers who've played pretty much the same teams as us able to score 28.7 ppg? Without a damn running game.

They also had the 2nd highest scoring team in the league last year at 27.4 ppg (yes they were THAT good already). And instead of playing NE (#4 in scoring defense) and IND (#7 in scoring defense) they got to play MIA (#25) and TEN (#29). Gosh, I wonder how they do it.

bpc
12-29-2009, 11:55 PM
Selective reasoning here. Stats don't always tell the whole story. Last time I checked, scoring average is affected by offense, defense, and special teams. Not only that, you have to see where the trends are heading.

For instance, Jay Cutler threw for 10 TD's, 4 Int's during 5 starts his 1st year, 20 Td's, 14 INT's and 3200 yds, his 2nd year/1st full year starting, and over 4000 yds, 25 TD's, and 18 INT's. The trend was up each year, and each year he got better weapons so one would assume that the offense was on the fast track to a whole bunch of success. Hell, they ranked 2nd in yardage. Say what you want about scoring average last year... it was Cutler's 2ND FULL SEASON as a starter. What are you expecting from him? 40 TD's and perfect play? It's unreasonable and anybody else would be stoked about where the offense was going, except those with an agenda. THOSE people post crap stats like this. Scoring comes with experience.

And what these stats completely don't take into account the defensive side of the ball. How much better is this years defense vs. last season? Turnovers, sacks, 3 and outs, T.O.P all coincide with how many opportunities the offense would have with the ball.

The 2008 defense had 6 INT's, and 8 FR's all season along with 25 sacks. 2009 has 29 turnovers, 39 sacks. Anybody want to compare what the TOP difference is, and how many more 3 and outs the 09 team has vs. 2008?

The 2008 offense was top 3 in terms of yardage. 2009 defense is top 5. There's the trade off. What matters now is where this team is in two years. If we're still without a quality QB, who can win under duress and in any situation, we've took a **** on an incredible opportunity we had with the youth movement of this team.

misturanderson
12-30-2009, 12:05 AM
Selective reasoning here. Stats don't always tell the whole story. Last time I checked, scoring average is affected by offense, defense, and special teams. Not only that, you have to see where the trends are heading.

For instance, Jay Cutler threw for 10 TD's, 4 Int's during 5 starts his 1st year, 20 Td's, 14 INT's and 3200 yds, his 2nd year/1st full year starting, and over 4000 yds, 25 TD's, and 18 INT's. The trend was up each year, and each year he got better weapons so one would assume that the offense was on the fast track to a whole bunch of success. Hell, they ranked 2nd in yardage. Say what you want about scoring average last year... it was Cutler's 2ND FULL SEASON as a starter. What are you expecting from him? 40 TD's and perfect play? It's unreasonable and anybody else would be stoked about where the offense was going, except those with an agenda. THOSE people post crap stats like this. Scoring comes with experience.

And what these stats completely don't take into account the defensive side of the ball. How much better is this years defense vs. last season? Turnovers, sacks, 3 and outs, T.O.P all coincide with how many opportunities the offense would have with the ball.

The 2008 defense had 6 INT's, and 8 FR's all season along with 25 sacks. 2009 has 29 turnovers, 39 sacks. Anybody want to compare what the TOP difference is, and how many more 3 and outs the 09 team has vs. 2008?

The 2008 offense was top 3 in terms of yardage. 2009 defense is top 5. There's the trade off. What matters now is where this team is in two years. If we're still without a quality QB, who can win under duress and in any situation, we've took a **** on an incredible opportunity we had with the youth movement of this team.

Any time you support Cutler and bag on Orton, you lose all credibility. Especially after the year Cutler's had.

All Cutler did last year compared to the year before was throw a ton more balls. He was not getting better in any significant statistical category except attempts, despite those "better weapons."

Orton is only in his 3rd full year as a starter and he has gotten better in every significant statistical category each year he has played. He wasn't playing all that well before, but at least he has shown an ability to improve his game.

I'm not saying that Orton is great, but he is better than Cutler now and he'll probably improve more this offseason than Cutler will. The change from Cutler to Orton is not the reason for any decrease in offensive production.

In fact, if you were to extend Orton's stats out to the same number of passes thrown as Cutler had last year, he would have more completions, more TDs and fewer Ints, while having a worse running game and worse protection.

bpc
12-30-2009, 12:12 AM
Any time you support Cutler and bag on Orton, you lose all credibility. Especially after the year Cutler's had.

All Cutler did last year compared to the year before was throw a ton more balls. He was not getting better in any significant statistical category except attempts, despite those "better weapons."

Orton is only in his 3rd full year as a starter and he has gotten better in every significant statistical category each year he has played. He wasn't playing all that well before, but at least he has shown an ability to improve his game.

I'm not saying that Orton is great, but he is better than Cutler now and he'll probably improve more this offseason than Cutler will.

Orton = Brandon Marshall/Eddie Royal (100 catches apiece), Offensive line which held opponents to 12 sacks.

Cutler = Throwing to guys named Devin Aromashodu and a terrible pass blocking offensive line.

Compare all you want but Orton is a finished product. Marginal arm, limited effectiveness, and terrible mobility. But he's gritty.

Cutler equals immature, INT prone when forced to throw, great arm, accuracy, and excellent mobility.

Cutler > Orton, and I don't really care what the slanted 2009 stats say.

Cutler will be a starter in 3 years. Orton will hopefully be on the bench again holding a clipboard. If not, McD probably won't be in Denver and we'll be on our 2nd HC since Shanny.

extralife
12-30-2009, 12:17 AM
Here are some more stats:

2009:

yards per drive: 29.99 (17)
points per drive: 1.58 (20)
TD per drive: .152 (24)
football outsiders offense efficiency: 21
football outsiders run blocking efficiency: 11
drives: 158 (10.53 game)
avg starting field position: 28.56
TO/drive: .114
red zone scoring percentage: 45.5
TD/game: 2.1
3rd down conversions per game: 4.7
3rd down conversion %: 35.5 (SECOND BIGGEST DROP IN THE NFL (Buffalo))
yards per play: 5.2 (16, BIGGEST DROP IN THE NFL)
punts per score: 1.2 (16, BIGGEST RISE IN THE NFL)
passes per game: 33.5

2008:

yards per drive: 38.38 (1)
points per drive: 2.16 (9)
TD per drive: .244 (9)
football outsiders offense efficiency: 6
football outsiders run blocking efficiency: 1
drives: 164 (10.25 game)
avg starting field position: 25.85
TO/drive: .177
red zone scoring percentage: 54.5
TD/game: 2.6
3rd down conversions per game: 5.9
3rd down conversion %: 47.5
yards per play: 6.2 (2)
punts per score: .7 (1)
Passes per game: 38.8

We were better last year at absolutely everything except turnovers, which is exactly what anyone with a set of eyeballs could tell you. And last year we had no running backs, and a terrible, terrible defense. If our turnover ratio was anywhere close to what it is this year, you'd see the "massive decline" in numbers that we can all see with eyeballs. In fact, you can already see it everywhere except points per game. And 3 more points per game, if you want to delve into the statistical idiocy you're preaching, would quite literally have put us in the playoffs.

I mean, yeah, we turned it over too much last year. We all knew that at the time, and we all also thought those numbers would go down in the future. We were throwing the ball every play with a second year starter.

Popps
12-30-2009, 12:19 AM
Chris, those were a lot of very angry, bitter words. You sound unhappy.

However, it does nothing to refute the thread topic. (Which can't be refuted, anyway.)

Stroking Jay Cutler really isn't going to get you anywhere in this conversation.

bpc
12-30-2009, 12:22 AM
Any time you support Cutler and bag on Orton, you lose all credibility. Especially after the year Cutler's had.

All Cutler did last year compared to the year before was throw a ton more balls. He was not getting better in any significant statistical category except attempts, despite those "better weapons."

Orton is only in his 3rd full year as a starter and he has gotten better in every significant statistical category each year he has played. He wasn't playing all that well before, but at least he has shown an ability to improve his game.

I'm not saying that Orton is great, but he is better than Cutler now and he'll probably improve more this offseason than Cutler will. The change from Cutler to Orton is not the reason for any decrease in offensive production.

In fact, if you were to extend Orton's stats out to the same number of passes thrown as Cutler had last year, he would have more completions, more TDs and fewer Ints, while having a worse running game and worse protection.

The fact is you can't do that because Orton can only legitimately make throws between 0-10 yds. Cutler's arm was constantly stretching the field 20-40 yds multiple times a game with accuracy.

This Broncos offense looks like a really dopey HS one.

While Cutler threw some interceptions, his offense was good enough to get our offense ranked 2nd in the NFL in yardage. Scoring would have come with time... interceptions would have come down with a consistent rushing offense (ie one starter, not seven or eight) and a defense which could have held a lead or at least cut down on points allowed.

TJ said it best. Stats are always a double edged sword. A yin and yang concept.

Strip the players down, put them side by side and Cutler blows Orton out of the water. Benefit goes to Kyle this year as he has a much better team around him and McDaniels still managed to make THAT look marginal. You need not look any further than the failure of the offensive line this season vs. last year and Eddie Royal's evaporation in his sophomore year.

bpc
12-30-2009, 12:25 AM
Chris, those were a lot of very angry, bitter words. You sound unhappy.

However, it does nothing to refute the thread topic. (Which can't be refuted, anyway.)

Stroking Jay Cutler really isn't going to get you anywhere in this conversation.

The only thing i'm truly angry about is going 2-7 down the stretch and managing to screw our playoff hopes twice in the same year. The last four years have been long in terms of blowing playoff appearances. McD conjured up that Shanny formula in just his first year, according to you guys.

Ah we'll see. This offseason is going to be huge for this roster. Better resign Doom and BMarsh or the heat is really going to be on. The only reason our offense or defense looks good this year is because of those two players and they're free agents.

Then this staff needs to decide what it's identity is going to be. I'm fine going to the defensive route but they better find a young signal caller who can relegate Orton to the bench where he needs to be.

misturanderson
12-30-2009, 12:26 AM
Cutler will be a starter in 3 years. Orton will hopefully be on the bench again holding a clipboard. If not, McD probably won't be in Denver and we'll be on our 2nd HC since Shanny.
I really don't understand what evidence you have to support this idea, but I'm obviously not going to change your mind. I see a wildly inconsistant QB that shows flashes of incredible athleticism, but who has gotten worse each year sans his first and who will kill his team with costly turnovers more often than he helps them. You see a future hall of famer.

tsiguy96
12-30-2009, 12:32 AM
Bull****!

Cutler had that many in one game!


:)

i meant defensive, sorry didnt know what youre total point was with taht haha, guess i got it wrong.

misturanderson
12-30-2009, 12:32 AM
The fact is you can't do that because Orton can only legitimately make throws between 0-10 yds. Cutler's arm was constantly stretching the field 20-40 yds multiple times a game with accuracy.

This isn't backed up by his stats. Cutler threw for a whole .3 yards more per attempt than Orton with this offensive personnel.

Cutler had a nice 15-25 yard downfield pass (40 is absolutely ridiculous, he's terrible that far downfield). Of course he would often throw that off of his back foot into triple coverage after staring down the receiver for 5 seconds, inevitably resulting in an interception.

He could be a great QB if he had the mental capacity for it, he just doesn't.

bpc
12-30-2009, 12:32 AM
I really don't understand what evidence you have to support this idea, but I'm obviously not going to change your mind. I see a wildly inconsistant QB that shows flashes of incredible athleticism, but who has gotten worse each year sans his first and who will kill his team with costly turnovers more often than he helps them. You see a future hall of famer.

Cutler was forced to carry this franchise both his 1st and 2nd full years starting. NO QB's have been expected to carry that much weight out the gate., outside maybe Peyton Manning. Not Brady, not Big Ben, not McNabb... Cutler managed to post 20 + TD's while Shanny called in re-enforcements. He didn't have a full compliment of weapons until last season in Denver and even then, the defense was **** and forced him to play catchup often. Throw, throw, throw. When offense is predictable, you can call defenses accordingly. Also a reason why his Bears season has gone down as a forgettable one.

Doesn't really matter anymore in the end.

bpc
12-30-2009, 12:35 AM
This isn't backed up by his stats. Cutler threw for a whole .3 yards more per attempt than Orton with this offensive personnel.

Cutler had a nice 15-25 yard downfield pass (40 is absolutely ridiculous, he's terrible that far downfield). Of course he would often throw that off of his back foot into triple coverage after staring down the receiver for 5 seconds, inevitably resulting in an interception.

He could be a great QB if he had the mental capacity for it, he just doesn't.

How many immature kids come out of college at the age of 22, 23?

The funniest thing about the NFL now a days is if guys are dominating their 2nd year and on, they are a lost cause. It's pretty funny to read but utterly ridiculous when it comes to building teams.

tsiguy96
12-30-2009, 12:36 AM
one major point that me and others tried to get across in the offseason is that last years offense was NOT that good. they scored 1/3 of their points in the first 3 games. after that, it was ridiculous besides the browns game.

this year the offense has regressed, but it is more consistent in that we arent throwing up eggs every other week, but not lighting up the scoreboards either. but as kupesdad pointed out, its the first year in a very difficult system where players are still thinking and not going all out yet.

Popps
12-30-2009, 12:37 AM
i meant defensive, sorry didnt know what youre total point was with taht haha, guess i got it wrong.

I know man, I was pulling your leg. :approve:

Popps
12-30-2009, 12:41 AM
We were better last year at absolutely everything except turnovers,.

Again, a FG difference in points... offset by a big difference in taking care of the ball.

That's what's called a non-issue, not a "massive" anything.

We've scored more points in the 2nd half of the season, and we've played the last two games much closer than the last two (of 3) last season.

There were no signs this team was improving towards the end of last year.


Wonder-douche has been a disaster in Chicago. So, don't even bring him up.


Once again, our offense needs to get better.

There has been no "massive" decline of any sort.

End of story.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 12:42 AM
i think we had a few against KC if im not mistaken too

That's where our sole defensive touchdown came from this year, on Goodman's fumble return.

Last year Nate Webster ran a fumble back against the Saints and Vernon Fox ran another fumble back against the Jets.

Rashomon
12-30-2009, 12:44 AM
I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points




It is interesting how people can selectively choose stats to bolster their argument. For instance, why last 7 games instead of 8? Could it be to drop the 2008 game against Cleveland (34 pts) and the 2009 game vs. Pittsburgh (10 pts)?

Anyway, I think that just throwing out stats like total points in the last 7 games to make the argument about an offense doesn't tell the whole story. I decided to look at the top 2 scoring games from those selected games that you mentioned to see how the effective offenses really were in those games. I only chose 2 games, because I didn't want to spend that much time.
For 2009, the top 2 scoring games in the last 7 were against KC (44) and Philadelphia (27). For 2008, it was the NYJ (34) and Atlanta (24).

2009 KC - Avg TD Drive - 61 yds. 4 TDs.
Avg FG Drive - 11 yds. 2 FGs.
1 Defensive TD.
3 & outs - 3 of 13 meaningful possessions (no EOH or EOG included)
Turnovers - 3 for Denver, +0 for game.

2009 PHI - Avg TD Drive - 37 yds. 3 TDs.
Avg FG Drive - 31.5 yds 2 FGs.
3 & outs - 6 of 13, including 3 of last 4 possessions.
Turnovers - 1 for Denver, + 2 for game.

2008 NYJ Avg TD Drive 69 yds - 3 TDs.
Avg FG Drive - 59.5 yds - 2 FGs.
1 defensive TD.
3 & outs - 1 of 11
Turnovers - 1 for Denver, +1 for game.
2008 Atl Avg TD drive - 71.67 yds - 3 TDs
Avg FG drive - 60 yds - 1 FG
3 & outs - 4 of 8
Turnovers - 0 for Denver, +1 for game.

Of the 4 games, 2009 KC is by far the worst scoring defense. Two things really jumped out at me from looking at these stats: The 2008 offense had to work a lot harder to score points in these games, and the 2009 offense got a lot more possessions to work with. I think this is directly related to the greatly improved defense getting off the field more quickly, allowing more possessions.

I didn't really have an agenda with my stats, but I thought I would share what I found. I would say that despite the fact that Denver scored 27 against Philadelphia, I don't think you could point to that as a good offensive game, when half the points are scored on TD drives of 25 yards or less, and you end the game with a 3 & out on 3 of your last 4 possessions.

Popps
12-30-2009, 12:44 AM
That's where our sole defensive touchdown came from this year, on Goodman's fumble return.

Last year Nate Webster ran a fumble back against the Saints and Vernon Fox ran another fumble back against the Jets.

Oops.

That theory is out, I guess.

extralife
12-30-2009, 01:02 AM
Again, a FG difference in points... offset by a big difference in taking care of the ball.

That's what's called a non-issue, not a "massive" anything.

We've scored more points in the 2nd half of the season, and we've played the last two games much closer than the last two (of 3) last season.

There were no signs this team was improving towards the end of last year.


Wonder-douche has been a disaster in Chicago. So, don't even bring him up.


Once again, our offense needs to get better.

There has been no "massive" decline of any sort.

End of story.

good thing you ignored all those numbers in my post. you have a consistent agenda, and have for years. nothing is going to change you. 3-13 and you'd be fine because we were "rebuilding," exact same story as last year, epic collapse and all? more balanced team. yeah, nice and balanced on either side of the win/loss column.

here's the thing: last year, our offense was our strength. this year, it's the defense. last year, it was obvious our young, skilled offense had a high ceiling. this year, our old, overachieving defense doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. yeah, our offense this year is about ten times better than our defense last year. all that balance bought us a one win improvement at best, the same second half choke job, and a whole lot less to get excited about. yeah, I want to put on the rose colored glasses and pretend we're still an elite team too, Popps, but we ain't. and we won't be, sustainably, any time soon.

Ratboy
12-30-2009, 01:05 AM
Nice points on both sides of the argument.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 01:09 AM
And what these stats completely don't take into account the defensive side of the ball. How much better is this years defense vs. last season? Turnovers, sacks, 3 and outs, T.O.P all coincide with how many opportunities the offense would have with the ball. You know, last year's defense was pretty bad, but none of you Cutler widows seem to acknowledge the fact that there were several games where the defense did enough to win us the game and Cutler choked it away.

Also, Cutler and Bates (gotta include him) screwed our defense just as much as the defense screwed the offense. It was pretty much a mutual thing.

Scoring comes with experience. Unless we're talking about Kyle Orton, right? ::)

If we're still without a quality QB, who can win under duress and in any situation, we've took a **** on an incredible opportunity we had with the youth movement of this team. We weren't going to get that with Cutler either, so why not sit back and enjoy the ride?

Compare all you want but Orton is a finished product. How the hell can you honestly make that claim when he's been in the league exactly 1 year longer than your Lord Cutler, yet we constantly hear you talking about how Cutler needs good coaching to take the next step.

Also, you could easily make the claim that Cutler is closer to his peak than Orton is, since Cutler spent his first 3 years under Mike Shanahan while Orton was in Chicago where they haven't developed a quarterback in, oh I don't know...forever?

Marginal arm We've already blown this myth out of the water. Why do you keep posting it?

limited effectiveness Are we talking about Orton or Cutler?

and terrible mobility. Mobility is a secondary trait in this offense.

Cutler equals immature, INT prone whenever he throws, great arm, horrible accuracy, and excellent mobility. Fixed.

Cutler > Orton, and I don't really care what the slanted 2009 stats say. How about career winning record? Oh ****, Orton comes out on top!

How about this season's record? Orton by a mile.

Interceptions? Cutler leads here by about a galaxy. Too bad you're supposed to throw very few of them.

I guess you guys can always hang on to that Pro Bowl berth. Oh wait, he **** the bed there too!

Cutler will be a starter in 3 years. Not playing like he did this year.

Cutler was forced to carry this franchise both his 1st and 2nd full years starting. NO QB's have been expected to carry that much weight out the gate., outside maybe Peyton Manning. Not Brady, not Big Ben, not McNabb... Cutler managed to post 20 + TD's while Shanny called in re-enforcements. He didn't have a full compliment of weapons until last season in Denver and even then, the defense was **** and forced him to play catchup often. Throw, throw, throw. When offense is predictable, you can call defenses accordingly. Also a reason why his Bears season has gone down as a forgettable one. Cutler and his boyfriend Jeremy Bates were the reason we threw threw threw. Forgetting that Oakland game are we? You know, the one where we still had a healthy Peyton Hillis yet abandoned to ground game to watch Bates repeatedly target Marshall despite the fact he was getting shut down?

Ratboy
12-30-2009, 01:09 AM
This stat is what is killing us on offense. This is the reason we are doing so ****ty. Third down conversions.

2008 - 95/200 (5th) (3rd in %)
2009 - 71/200 (23rd) (23 in %)

MplsBronco
12-30-2009, 01:13 AM
The whiners don't know what they are looking at on the field they only attach their feelings to the score board, win feel good - lose feel bad, that's their game.

They don't even notice the cutler team quit last year and they fail to see this team was in every game and played every play. They will get better.

I give McD a C+ for his rookie year, same for Moreno. They both will get better, a lot better.

Exactly, Baja. My goals for the season were to see a team that played hard and competed and wouldn't give up as well as one that got better as the season went on. While I don't fee we have gotten better as the season progressed, I like how the team doesn't give up. Sure, we've had a couple of games where we got blown out (Bal, SD) but this team has shown resolve and made comebacks (Cincy, Dal, NE, Indy, Philly). While we haven't won all those games those are games that I most assuredly believe the team would have given up on last year with Shanny at the helm. And even though we lost to the Raider at home, again, it was a game we were leading late in the 4th after another comeback. What was the score again last year at home against the Raiders, 30-3 or something ridiculous like that. Yeah, VaJayJay was all world.

MplsBronco
12-30-2009, 01:18 AM
As I've been posting elsewhere, per Sagarin we played the 3rd easiest schedule last year compared to the 7th most difficult so far this year.

That part I find surprising. I would think it was higher. Probably KC and Oak bringing it down. I was just looking at one of the power polls that had us at 12 or 13. We have played 9 games against 8 of the top 10 or 11 teams in that ranking with a record of 4-5. Competitive considering all of the turmoil and turnover. I feel much better about this team at the end of this year than last year and that 52-21 debacle or whatever the hell the score was.

Taco John
12-30-2009, 01:23 AM
Cutler and his boyfriend Jeremy Bates were the reason we threw threw threw.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the 15 injured runningbacks did it? ::)

mr007
12-30-2009, 01:26 AM
This post is retarded.

Here's a DEFENSIVE stat for you that DIRECTLY contributes to the offense:

Turnovers generated by Broncos D:

2008: - 13

2009: - 28

If you seriously think our offense from last year with *UPGRADES* at some positions wouldn't score more points with this D, you're an idiot.

I'm so tired of skewed bs stats. Keep spewing your crap Popps.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 01:28 AM
Yeah, it had nothing to do with the 15 injured runningbacks did it? ::)

Peyton Hillis was healthy for the Oakland game, which is easily the biggest indictment against Bates and his playcalling.

Despite having a healthy Hillis, Bates continued to try to exploit the Jay to Brandon connection. The Raiders shut Brandon down, and we basically saw 3 and out after 3 and out because of it, resulting in a 31-10 loss.

MplsBronco
12-30-2009, 01:33 AM
That's where our sole defensive touchdown came from this year, on Goodman's fumble return.

Last year Nate Webster ran a fumble back against the Saints and Vernon Fox ran another fumble back against the Jets.

Ayers actually had one against the Steelers as well.

mr007
12-30-2009, 01:36 AM
Selective reasoning here. Stats don't always tell the whole story. Last time I checked, scoring average is affected by offense, defense, and special teams. Not only that, you have to see where the trends are heading.

For instance, Jay Cutler threw for 10 TD's, 4 Int's during 5 starts his 1st year, 20 Td's, 14 INT's and 3200 yds, his 2nd year/1st full year starting, and over 4000 yds, 25 TD's, and 18 INT's. The trend was up each year, and each year he got better weapons so one would assume that the offense was on the fast track to a whole bunch of success. Hell, they ranked 2nd in yardage. Say what you want about scoring average last year... it was Cutler's 2ND FULL SEASON as a starter. What are you expecting from him? 40 TD's and perfect play? It's unreasonable and anybody else would be stoked about where the offense was going, except those with an agenda. THOSE people post crap stats like this. Scoring comes with experience.

And what these stats completely don't take into account the defensive side of the ball. How much better is this years defense vs. last season? Turnovers, sacks, 3 and outs, T.O.P all coincide with how many opportunities the offense would have with the ball.

The 2008 defense had 6 INT's, and 8 FR's all season along with 25 sacks. 2009 has 29 turnovers, 39 sacks. Anybody want to compare what the TOP difference is, and how many more 3 and outs the 09 team has vs. 2008?

The 2008 offense was top 3 in terms of yardage. 2009 defense is top 5. There's the trade off. What matters now is where this team is in two years. If we're still without a quality QB, who can win under duress and in any situation, we've took a **** on an incredible opportunity we had with the youth movement of this team.

Good post.

MplsBronco
12-30-2009, 01:36 AM
This post is retarded.

Here's a DEFENSIVE stat for you that DIRECTLY contributes to the offense:

Turnovers generated by Broncos D:

2008: - 13

2009: - 28

If you seriously think our offense from last year with *UPGRADES* at some positions wouldn't score more points with this D, you're an idiot.

I'm so tired of skewed bs stats. Keep spewing your crap Popps.

There is some merit to this post but you seem to be missing the point of the entire thread.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 01:40 AM
Ayers actually had one against the Steelers as well.

Ahhh, I forgot about that. Thanks for the heads up.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 01:42 AM
If you seriously think our offense from last year with *UPGRADES* at some positions wouldn't score more points with this D, you're an idiot.

And this, in a nutshell, is why Shanny had to go. He was really obsessed with creating another dynasty level offense, but he failed there and abandoned the defense to boot.

That's no way to build a football team.

24champ
12-30-2009, 01:45 AM
there were several games where the defense did enough to win us the game and Cutler choked it away.

There were plenty of games where we should have either won, or blown out an opponent. Instead we've eeked out wins or lost. Last years defense was crap, I don't think Manning/Brady would have fared much better with that crap defense on their teams.

Cutler and Bates (gotta include him) screwed our defense just as much as the defense screwed the offense.

Heh. History revisionism at it's best.

Is there evidence of you saying this during last season on here? My guess is there is not.

We weren't going to get that with Cutler either, so why not sit back and enjoy the ride?

We won't know if we would or not. All I know is that we have a need at the QB position down the road. Orton is just a stopgap QB, nothing special. Not knocking him, but it is what it is.


How the hell can you honestly make that claim when he's been in the league exactly 1 year longer than your Lord Cutler, yet we constantly hear you talking about how Cutler needs good coaching to take the next step.

Also, you could easily make the claim that Cutler is closer to his peak than Orton is, since Cutler spent his first 3 years under Mike Shanahan while Orton was in Chicago where they haven't developed a quarterback in, oh I don't know...forever?


If you are going to ignore the talent level gap between these two QBs...then skip right over this portion of the response.

We all can agree that Cutler has way more talent and physical tools that very few QBs have in the NFL. That is why Cutler's ceiling level is higher than Orton's. I don't see where Orton would improve vastly in terms of talent, but in terms of knowing the offense, he could improve. How much? That's up for McDaniels to decide, since he is the only one that really knows how Orton is progressing. My guess is, that Orton is hanging around for another 1-3 years.

Mobility is a secondary trait in this offense.

True, but I have to say his mobility in the pocket...just looks awkward to me.

How about career winning record? Oh ****, Orton comes out on top!

How about this season's record? Orton by a mile.

Interceptions? Cutler leads here by about a galaxy. Too bad you're supposed to throw very few of them.

I guess you guys can always hang on to that Pro Bowl berth. Oh wait, he **** the bed there too!

Pretty much pointless if you can't get in the playoffs, which neither QB did a very good job of leading their respective teams down the playoff stretch. Upgrade some positions on the offense and see what Orton does with it next season, if he doesn't improve then I'd think its time to pull the plug on that project.


Cutler and his boyfriend Jeremy Bates were the reason we threw threw threw. Forgetting that Oakland game are we? You know, the one where we still had a healthy Peyton Hillis yet abandoned to ground game to watch Bates repeatedly target Marshall despite the fact he was getting shut down?

We tried the opposite this year vs the raiders....didn't work out so well did it?

mr007
12-30-2009, 01:48 AM
There is some merit to this post but you seem to be missing the point of the entire thread.

The point of the massive offensive decline??

I'm not sure what substantiates massive to some people, but a 25% drop on 3rd down effectiveness, combined with the fact that we have a 25 turnover difference on the season compared with last year starts to push me towards, yeah, our O has suffered a significant decline despite the lower amount of turnovers.

Points scored tell little of the story due to the effectiveness of our defense this year, period.

mr007
12-30-2009, 01:49 AM
And this, in a nutshell, is why Shanny had to go. He was really obsessed with creating another dynasty level offense, but he failed there and abandoned the defense to boot.

That's no way to build a football team.

I completely agree with you there.

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 02:08 AM
There were plenty of games where we should have either won, or blown out an opponent. Instead we've eeked out wins or lost. Last years defense was crap, I don't think Manning/Brady would have fared much better with that crap defense on their teams. Manning has succeeded with pretty questionable defenses during his career. Brady, at the very least, would have saved us alot of turnovers.

Heh. History revisionism at it's best. No it's not.

Kansas City - Defense did enough for us to win, but Cutler came up lame with two pretty crucial interceptions. Also another case where we abandoned the run game too early and it cost us big time.

Jacksonville - Cutler gave us a whopping 192 passing yards

Miami - Jay throws 3 picks, and we might as well have left the running backs (11 attempts) at home and saved the air fare.

Oakland - Defense held the Raiders in check, offense responds by abandoning the running game despite early success and we end up getting smoked.

Is there evidence of you saying this during last season on here? My guess is there is not. Not sure. Also not sure what this has to do with my current views on the team. If you're arguing that I (among many others) came down to earth on 2008's offense, well I'll save you the time there.

We won't know if we would or not. I'd say this season in Chicago shows exactly what we could have expected with Cutler. A mopey, poor man's version of Brett Favre.

All I know is that we have a need at the QB position down the road. Orton is just a stopgap QB, nothing special. Not knocking him, but it is what it is. Too early to make this call. Like I told you the other night though, if we really need an upgrade at QB, McD will be the first to see it.

If you are going to ignore the talent level gap between these two QBs...then skip right over this portion of the response.

We all can agree that Cutler has way more talent and physical tools that very few QBs have in the NFL. That is why Cutler's ceiling level is higher than Orton's. I don't see where Orton would improve vastly in terms of talent, but in terms of knowing the offense, he could improve. How much? That's up for McDaniels to decide, since he is the only one that really knows how Orton is progressing. My guess is, that Orton is hanging around for another 1-3 years. Sure, Cutler has all world talent, he's just ****ed in the head. His higher ceiling means jack **** if he doesn't put it together, and he's taken a huge friggin step backwards this year.

As for how much Orton can improve, well I will simply point you to guys like Brees, who flourished in a much similar situation.

Pretty much pointless if you can't get in the playoffs, which neither QB did a very good job of leading their respective teams down the playoff stretch. I don't see any problems with the way Orton lead this team down the stretch. He came in the game against San Diego (being injured, mind you) and energized the entire stadium and the team. Unfortunately a blown call on that fumble took the wind out of those sails real quick. How about the Eagles game? No questioning his leadership there.

Jay and leadership just don't go together.

Upgrade some positions on the offense and see what Orton does with it next season, if he doesn't improve then I'd think its time to pull the plug on that project. Agreed.

We tried the opposite this year vs the raiders....didn't work out so well did it? It didn't?

Raiders margin of victory in 2008? 21 points

2009? Just 1 point. Oh, and the 2009 offense gave us 9 more points than the 2008 game.

ZONA
12-30-2009, 02:13 AM
How DARE you suggest logical things like strength of opponent? How dare you even mention we played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL this year. You sir, are an apologist! Fire McDaniels! Cutler would have taken us to the Super Bowl!!!!!! ROAWOWRWWWOOWOW!!!!!

One of the hardest? I believe it was THE hardest, if I am correct.

24champ
12-30-2009, 02:45 AM
Manning has succeeded with pretty questionable defenses during his career. Brady, at the very least, would have saved us alot of turnovers.


See Manning's 2001 season.

QB's generally do poor with a crappy D on their side.

No it's not.

Kansas City - Allowed LJ to run for nearly 200 yds.

Jacksonville - Jags had the ball seemingly forever, and the D couldn't stop Taylor at the end and choked.

Miami - We got robbed with a PI call on Bly in that game that altered everything, similiar to the Moreno fumble at the goal line.

Oakland - The Raiders hadn't scored an offensive touchdown in 15 consecutive quarters (206 plays) but scored three touchdowns in 18 plays during the second half.
Fixed the above

Now I'll raise you the first San Diego game, Saints game, Patriots game, Panthers game, second San Diego game (The Chargers scored on six of their first seven drives. They didn't punt until 57 seconds left in the third quarter -- and that was their only punt.)

As for how much Orton can improve, well I will simply point you to guys like Brees, who flourished in a much similar situation.

Are you comparing Brees and Orton? Seriously?


I don't see any problems with the way Orton lead this team down the stretch. He came in the game against San Diego (being injured, mind you) and energized the entire stadium and the team. Unfortunately a blown call on that fumble took the wind out of those sails real quick. How about the Eagles game? No questioning his leadership there.

I'll be impressed with that Eagles game if they had played hard for the full 60 minutes, not the last 30 minutes. They came out flat in a game that mattered.

It didn't?

Raiders margin of victory in 2008? 21 points

2009? Just 1 point.


I was referring to your whining about how we threw so much, it worked the first game vs the Raiders didn't it? We lit them up for 41 points by throwing darts everywhere. They couldn't stop us in that MNF game. Now this year we tried to run against them...care to tell us all what our yards per carry was in the last Raiders game?

Florida_Bronco
12-30-2009, 03:16 AM
See Manning's 2001 season.

QB's generally do poor with a crappy D on their side. That's one season. He's still had several others that have been successful despite poor defenses.

Fixed the above You fix posts like Bob gets laid.

KC - A significant portion of that yardage (65 yards to be exact) came on one single run very early in the game. He also compiled that yardage on damn near 30 carries thanks to Bates and Cutler trying to chuck the ball around and ignoring our own running game.

Jags - They had the ball seemingly forever because we kept giving it back to them. We did very little on offense despite a pretty decent performance from the D.

Miami - Getting robber on a PI call doesn't change the fact that Cutler threw 3 picks and Bates refused to run the ball.

Now I'll raise you the first San Diego game A game that Cutler single- handedly loses for us if it wasn't for the gift of the year from the refs.

Saints game Our defense scored a touchdown in a game that ultimately came down to less than a field goal, plus they held firm on the Saints final drive, forcing them into a long field goal that they ultimately missed. There was also a monumental goal line stand early in that game.

Brees may have carved them up through the air, but they provided us with a touchdown, kept the ground game in check and ultimately held firm when it counted.

Patriots game Our offense didn't show up for this game either. I'll give them a pass since Cutler got ****ed up on the first series.

Panthers game Ahh yes, the dreaded 4-4 experiment. Tied up 10-10 after the first quarter, and then the offense goes into turtle mode despite the game still being in reach (only down by 10) going into the 2nd half.

second San Diego game (The Chargers scored on six of their first seven drives. They didn't punt until 57 seconds left in the third quarter -- and that was their only punt.) And another stellar performance by the offense.

Oh yeah, how about that Buffalo game? Almost solely on the offense.

Are you comparing Brees and Orton? Seriously? What's the problem with that? Both of them were spread quarterbacks at Purdue who ended up in west coast offenses not suited to their strengths before moving on to spread offense teams. Brees has lit up the league since making the switch, so why can't we expect Orton to be our QBOTF?

Also if you want to compare their scouting reports (I have) you'll see that the physical talent gap there is minimal.

I was referring to your whining about how we threw so much, it worked the first game vs the Raiders didn't it? We lit them up for 41 points by throwing darts everywhere. They couldn't stop us in that MNF game. Now this year we tried to run against them...care to tell us all what our yards per carry was in the last Raiders game?
How is that a valid comparison? We jumped all over the Raiders in the MNF game, so why not continue with what was working? In the game in Denver we were tied up at zero after the first quarter and went into the half down 10-3. That gameplan wasn't working yet we continued to do the same damn thing in the 2nd half and we got stomped.

Popps
12-30-2009, 03:50 AM
good thing you ignored all those numbers in my post.

Yap...yap...yap...yap....yap....

... and still no proof of the "massive offensive decline."

No massive point decline.

No massive turnover decline.

No massive TOP decline.

No massive wins decline.

Nothing that matters.

Better luck next argument, boss.

Popps
12-30-2009, 03:53 AM
Peyton Hillis was healthy for the Oakland game, which is easily the biggest indictment against Bates and his playcalling.
.

:rofl:

Oops.

Peyton Christ was healthy, and we chose to have Jay pitch the ball into triple coverage with his "rocket arm" instead.

Jeesh. After Taco's recent Hillis Jihad, you'd think he at might at least avoid the "injured RBs" argument.

jhns
12-30-2009, 07:09 AM
Yap...yap...yap...yap....yap....

... and still no proof of the "massive offensive decline."

No massive point decline.

No massive turnover decline.

No massive TOP decline.

No massive wins decline.

Nothing that matters.

Better luck next argument, boss.

3 points a game is big, I don't get what you are saying. We would be the 12th place scoring team with that extra 3 points. We are currently 19th.
Last years team was also better in every important part of the game other than turnovers. They were better on third down, in the red zone, and at not going 3 and out constantly.

Then there is the fact you all are still using a team scoring stat to dog last years offense. It shows you have no leg to stand on in this argument.

Last years offense was also younger and all of the young guys were playing at a high level. This year, it looks like all of those guys are far worse other than Marshall. This is the decline people complain about. Everyone knows last years offense needed a lot of work. It had the exact same run problems and it had a lot of turnovers. It also had an entire unit of rookie-third year players playing at a very high level.

I don't get why this offends you McD lovers. Most will not claim last years team is better than this years. You are showing your "knowledge" though when you act like this offense has shown even half the potential last years offense showed.

DrFate
12-30-2009, 07:20 AM
It really is funny to see how people either

1) in one thread, dismiss statistics as irrelevant, and in another point to those that are favorable to advance their agenda
2) pick and choose statistics that prop up their poor arguments, while simply ignoring those that do not support it

rastaman
12-30-2009, 07:28 AM
How much is McD paying you for this propaganda Popps?

Popps is a Shill......he does this crap for free! Everybody has a hobby. :wiggle:

rastaman
12-30-2009, 07:36 AM
:rofl:

Oops.

Peyton Christ was healthy, and we chose to have Jay pitch the ball into triple coverage with his "rocket arm" instead.

Jeesh. After Taco's recent Hillis Jihad, you'd think he at might at least avoid the "injured RBs" argument.

Well we had McJesus callling all those successful offensive game planning and play calling....to bad the rest of the league caught up with his "Dink-dunk-Bubble Screen offense while posting a 2-7 record.

And McJesus acomplished all this w/o suffering a concussion although his play calling resembled someone who has had multiple concussions.

But other than that all is okay.....Right?

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 07:48 AM
Last years offense was also younger and all of the young guys were playing at a high level. This year, it looks like all of those guys are far worse other than Marshall. This is the decline people complain about.

Ding, ding, ding. In case it wasn't clear before, now we know for certain where people's priorities are.

"We don't care that the scoring is basically the same as last year, even though the difference in strength of schedule more than accounts for that. All we care about is that our fantasy football team is sucking this year. You know, those individual reception and yardage stats that mean nothing anywhere else."

jhns
12-30-2009, 08:00 AM
Ding, ding, ding. In case it wasn't clear before, now we know for certain where people's priorities are.

"We don't care that the scoring is basically the same as last year, even though the difference in strength of schedule more than accounts for that. All we care about is that our fantasy football team is sucking this year. You know, those individual reception and yardage stats that mean nothing anywhere else."

That is exactly what I was saying.... Riiight.

I have never played fantasy football in my life. Just figured I'd put that out there.

Anyways, you are telling me it is a good thing Royal doesn't look like a receiver now, our young linemen can't block as well, our FBs can't block or catch as well, or that the young TE suddenly can't run routes as well as before? It makes us just as good being 3 points a game worse(which is big, it is laughable that you guys think otherwise).

Let me put it this way. Look at what you said the offensive needs were just after last season. Look at what you thought we had with the young players. I bet you now think we need to replace a lot more and I don't know how you can claim the young guys haven't regressed.

All of the young guys suddenly regressing and more holes, not to mention less production in every key offensive area, and this is just as good to you? This offense shows just as much potential as the one that had all of those rookie-third year players looking like they were some of the best in the league? Many thought those young guys were one of the best o-lines and one of the best receiving units in the league. How many people think that same thing of the young players now?

Older with less production and all of the young guys playing worse is not showing more potential. I don't care what spin or excuses you have.

rastaman
12-30-2009, 08:01 AM
And the winner is...the better TEAM.

Defense or lack thereof a Defense! Ha!

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 08:09 AM
I have never played fantasy football in my life. Just figured I'd put that out there.

Just because you don't play doesn't mean you didn't make a "fantasy football argument." Talking about lack of receptions and yardage (which is ALL you've been doing with regards to Royal, Stokley and Schef) in multiple threads is just that. The scoring is identical.

Anyways, you are telling me it is a good thing Royal doesn't look like a receiver now, our young linemen can't block as well, our FBs can't block or catch as well, or that the young TE suddenly can't run routes as well as before? It makes us just as good being 3 points a game worse(which is big, it is laughable that you guys think otherwise).

This is the second time you've claimed people are doing this. Please tell me where ANYONE claimed this was a good thing. You can't.

Let me put it this way. Look at what you said the offensive needs were just after last season. Look at what you thought we had with the young players. I bet you now think we need to replace a lot more and I don't know how you can claim the young guys haven't regressed.


Who's claiming that? It's an entirely new system and there have been injuries to the OLine and receiving corp that we didn't have last year. We've got a lot of crap to deal with this year that we didn't have last year. Think about it. Kupesdad even made a point of mentioning it. With the OLine, trust and cohesion is key. It was there last year. This year? Injuries have killed any chance of it.

All of the young guys suddenly regressing and more holes, not to mention less production in every key offensive area, and this is just as good to you? This offense shows just as much potential as the one that had all of those rookie-third year players looking like they were some of the best in the league? Many thought those young guys were one of the best o-lines and one of the best receiving units in the league. How many people think that same thing of the young players now?

Young players on the OLine? Kuper, Clady and Harris? Those are the only ones I still want here next year. Lose Weigmann and Hamilton.

Steve Prefontaine
12-30-2009, 08:10 AM
Oops.

That theory is out, I guess.

Um...

THIRD QUARTER PIT DEN
TD 11:16 Robert Ayers 54 Yd Fumble Return (Matt Prater Kick) 7 10

Some of this **** I read on here is hilarious with people crawling all over each other to be "right".

Steve Prefontaine
12-30-2009, 08:16 AM
Asshat1: Here are all the stats. You can't refute these. This year's team is worse offensively, but only by a field goal. Who cares about field goals?

Asshat2: What about starting field position? Defensive and ST touchdowns? What if we only look at offensive points scored?

Asshat1: Those stats don't count because they don't support my argument.

Asshat3: But what about these other stats regarding yards per play, 3rd down efficiency, etc.

Asshat1: Those also don't count. Nothing to see here. I am right and MY stats prove it.

So awesome. Good morning.

oubronco
12-30-2009, 08:21 AM
Asshat1: Here are all the stats. You can't refute these. This year's team is worse offensively, but only by a field goal. Who cares about field goals?

Asshat2: What about starting field position? Defensive and ST touchdowns? What if we only look at offensive points scored?

Asshat1: Those stats don't count because they don't support my argument.

Asshat3: But what about these other stats regarding yards per play, 3rd down efficiency, etc.

Asshat1: Those also don't count. Nothing to see here. I am right and MY stats prove it.

So awesome. Good morning.

:spit: :spit: :spit: :spit:

jhns
12-30-2009, 08:24 AM
Just because you don't play doesn't mean you didn't make a "fantasy football argument." Talking about lack of receptions and yardage (which is ALL you've been doing with regards to Royal, Stokley and Schef) in multiple threads is just that. The scoring is identical.
.

LOL.... The scoring is not identical. The 11th place scoring team is where we were last year. We are currently 19th. This is the same to you?

It isn't just receptions. All of our young offensive players have regressed, period. Are you disputing this? Your spins into random thoughts like this don't even make sense. I hav e never said they only have regressed because of receptions. Either dispute what I say or leave it alone. You have nothing to counter so you try spinning arguments into completely different ones like it somehow makes people wrong....

Other than that, I have made my case. No one with a brain thinks this offense is better or shows more potential. Everyone thinks we need to replace far more than they thought at the end of last season. This says it all. Maybe we can get better when McD gets the players for his system. He hasn't done that and we don't look better on offense.

Again, I don't get why this is offensive to you guys. Not many claim the team is worse off now. Last years team was still the Broncos and that team had one good unit that looked to have tons of potential with the level the young guys were playing at. This team shows more potential because it plays all 3 phases. No one is taking anything away from this team when they say last years offense was better and showed more potential than this one.

gyldenlove
12-30-2009, 08:28 AM
Once again, we have a 10% decrease in our offensive output that is directly attributable to the schedule we have faced.

One could easily argue that declining play and injuries on the offensive line could account for some if not all of that additional 5% and that a complete scheme change for all but a couple backups on offense could also contribute to that. It wouldn't matter how good or bad our offense was last year, these things will decrease any offense's production unless the previous scheme was an abject failure.

We need to improve our offensive output, no doubt, but this offense is barely worse than it was last year. It should see a decent jump in production simply due to getting back injured players, having another year in the system, having an easier schedule (it's unlikely that we could have a harder one to score against), and adding some offensive linemen that fit the system better.

That is a bull**** chicken and egg argument, are the defenses we have played better because we score fewer points or do we score fewer points because we face better defenses.

One could easily argue that with our turnover margin having gone up a lot we should score more points since we have a lot better field position, one could also argue that we have not had a single RB go on IR this year and so our run game should be much more consistent which should help us score points. One could in fact easily argue the opposite of what you argue, but since it is pointless I say lets just stick with facts, facts are that we are 15% worse than last year which I say is a lot, Popps says it is not.

gyldenlove
12-30-2009, 08:32 AM
No, no, no.

We're not talking about circumstantial bull****.

We're not talking about what if's.

We're talking about factual information.

The factual information at hand here is that there HAS BEEN NO "massive" decline of any sort.

Net-net, our offensive output is on par with last season.

We've finished the 2nd half with more points.

We're playing closer games in the 2nd half.

We turn the ball over less.

Those are facts. The rest is just hot ****ing air.

What is circumstancial?

Did we hire Mcdaniels whom many, you included, touted as an offensive mastermind? yes.

Did we sign and draft runningbacks? yes.

Did we pick up a number of offensive linemen to improve one the best lines in the game? yes.

Did we pick up WRs? yes.

That is fact.

Are we scoring 15% fewer points than last year? yes.

Must I remind you that when we had the Cutler debate someone was so keen on using points as the indicator for how good our offense was. That someone was YOU!, so by your own standards we are 15% worse on offese this year than last.

I think 15% is a lot, it is 2 games in a 16 game schedule - I think 2 games is a lot.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 08:36 AM
I hav e never said they only have regressed because of receptions.

So I'll never be able to point to a post of your's where you specifically pointed out the difference in receptions of Royal, Stokley and Scheffler from last year to this year as a basis for your argument? Careful.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 08:38 AM
That is a bull**** chicken and egg argument, are the defenses we have played better because we score fewer points or do we score fewer points because we face better defenses.

Ummmm, unless they are only playing us 16 times, then they're ranking is based on 15 other opponents as well. Are you really arguing that all the teams we faced this year really sucked on defense but somehow managed to get top 10 rankings by padding their stats against our offense?

Bronco Yoda
12-30-2009, 08:39 AM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.


It's not just about the Points Popps although scoring is the ultimate goal here. Both teams have sucked in the RZ. It's also about moving the ball. killing the clock with long drives when you need them and digging yourself out of a hole when you're backed up.

As much as I rail on crybaby, I have to admit that he could move the ball between the 20's. And the running game last year could do its job on 3rd down to move the chains as well.

jhns
12-30-2009, 08:42 AM
So I'll never be able to point to a post of your's where you specifically pointed out the difference in receptions of Royal, Stokley and Scheffler from last year to this year as a basis for your argument? Careful.

Go ahead and point it out. It would be better than the random claims. I'm still not sure what that has to do with this argument, but go ahead.

Edit: Come to think of it, are you saying this shouldn't be used as a basis? You are saying Royals reception total doesn't reflect a huge dropoff in performance? He has started all year(other than last game). You are saying our offense throwing less explains that big of a dropoff?

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 08:47 AM
LOL.... The scoring is not identical. The 11th place scoring team is where we were last year. We are currently 19th. This is the same to you?

Actually, some years 22 pts per game could get you an 11th ranking while other years it could get you a 19th ranking. That is a flawed method of comparison.

When I say identical, I take into account other factors that aren't so simple. You know, things like strength of schedule, health of the opposition when they played, weather, etc. In other words, I think if this year's offense faced last year's schedule, the numbers would be significantly better for this unit.

Obviously, the hard numbers aren't identical. I was taking some license with the use of the word. But the overall theme is the same and is basically what Popps was getting at: it's not scoring at a significantly worse level than it was last year.

All of our young offensive players have regressed, period. Are you disputing this?

1. I assume you mean other than Marshall.
2. Why don't you read my other responses to you on this? In at least three different threads now, you've asked me this exact question. And in at least three different threads now, I've answered you.

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 08:48 AM
Red Zone attempts per game 2008 3.4 2009 2.9 Down
Red Zone score per game 2008 1.9 2009 1.3 Down
Red Zone scoring percentage 2008 54.5% 2009 45.5% Down
First downs per game 2008 22 2009 18 Down
Third downs per game 2008 12.5 2009 13.3 Up
Third down conversion per game 2008 5.9 2009 4.7 Down
Third down conversion percentage 2008 47.5% 2009 35.5% Down
Plays per game 2008 63.6 2009 63.5
Yards per play 2008 6.2 2009 5.2
Penalties per game 2008 4.4 2009 5.9

LOL! OOPS! Poops--delete this thread-serously--3 points per game isn't really that much???-3 points per game IS A BIG DIFFERENCE---we improved from 20/game in 2007 to 23 in 2008 and we would have been around 25-26/ game had Cutler stayed this year.....with the defensive improvement and the imrpvoed field position, there is no telling how many MORE games we would be winning this year.


2 wins in our LAST 9 games.

we were 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down conversions and SECOND in yards per game last year....we were poised to become ELITE on offense--instead we are PEDESTRIAN..look at our TEAM RANKINGS from this year...Orton is TRASH.

TonyR
12-30-2009, 08:50 AM
Here are some more stats:

2009:

football outsiders run blocking efficiency: 11

2008:

football outsiders run blocking efficiency: 1


In my mind this one is huge. Along with the disparity in strength of schedules, 30th last year and 7th so far this year, the decline in rushing efficiency impacts everything.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 08:52 AM
LOL! OOPS! Poops--delete this thread-serously--3 points per game isn't really that much???-3 points per game IS A BIG DIFFERENCE---we improved from 20/game in 2007 to 23 in 2008 and we would have been around 25-26/ game had Cutler stayed this year......

I guess you have a crystal ball?

So, if Cutler stayed here, we'd be scoring at least 3 more pts per game on offense? Then why is Chicago scoring 4 FEWER pts on offense this year than last year, when in theory all they did was add Cutler and improve their talent on that side of the ball?

Good luck with that.

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 08:56 AM
This stat is what is killing us on offense. This is the reason we are doing so ****ty. Third down conversions.

2008 - 95/200 (5th) (3rd in %)
2009 - 71/200 (23rd) (23 in %)

BINGO! The money down.

Orton comes up EMPTY.

jhns
12-30-2009, 08:58 AM
Actually, some years 22 pts per game could get you an 11th ranking while other years it could get you a 19th ranking. That is a flawed method of comparison.

When I say identical, I take into account other factors that aren't so simple. You know, things like strength of schedule, health of the opposition when they played, weather, etc. In other words, I think if this year's offense faced last year's schedule, the numbers would be significantly better for this unit.

Obviously, the hard numbers aren't identical. I was taking some license with the use of the word. But the overall theme is the same and is basically what Popps was getting at: it's not scoring at a significantly worse level than it was last year.



1. I assume you mean other than Marshall.
2. Why don't you read my other responses to you on this? In at least three different threads now, you've asked me this exact question. And in at least three different threads now, I've answered you.

To the first thing you said, I get that. Try telling that to you and Popps. For some reason you guys find these comparisons valid until I point stuff like that out.

As for the bottom part, I don't really even care to try remembering what you have said or what threads we have argued in, in the past. If you dispute a post saying the young guys have regressed, I can only assume you don't agree. I'm not sure how you canb even begin to claim our young offensive players look nearly as good as they did last year. Yes, with the exception of Marshall.

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 08:58 AM
I guess you have a crystal ball?

So, if Cutler stayed here, we'd be scoring at least 3 more pts per game on offense? Then why is Chicago scoring 4 FEWER pts on offense this year than last year, when in theory all they did was add Cutler and improve their talent on that side of the ball?

Good luck with that.

based on continuity and PRECEDENT from 2007 to 2008
YES--we'd have improved our PPG in 2009 by 2-3 points per game--especially given the added WR and RB depth. There's not enough lipstick for this pig Beantown......

TonyR
12-30-2009, 09:03 AM
BINGO! The money down.

Orton comes up EMPTY.

The main reason for this is the run blocking troubles. That's not to excuse it, just to point out the why. Some combination of injuries, scheme change, and player decline has significantly reduced the effectiveness of our O-line.

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 09:19 AM
The main reason for this is the run blocking troubles. That's not to excuse it, just to point out the why. Some combination of injuries, scheme change, and player decline has significantly reduced the effectiveness of our O-line.

scheme change and the lack of threat under center..which all can be attributed to JOSH MCGENIUS and his failures.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 09:30 AM
based on continuity and PRECEDENT from 2007 to 2008
YES--we'd have improved our PPG in 2009 by 2-3 points per game--especially given the added WR and RB depth. There's not enough lipstick for this pig Beantown......

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Even teams that return all coaches and all starters from the year before and keep their scheme the same don't magically improve by the same amount year after year. There are WAAAAAY too many variables to take into account that cannot be predicted.

Just look at Pittsburgh and Tennessee this year.

55CrushEm
12-30-2009, 10:14 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Even teams that return all coaches and all starters from the year before and keep their scheme the same don't magically improve by the same amount year after year. There are WAAAAAY too many variables to take into account that cannot be predicted.

Just look at Pittsburgh and Tennessee this year.

Don't question broncofraud7......he has all the answers.

kupesdad
12-30-2009, 10:44 AM
Where in the **** have you guys been the last 2 days?? I have been spewing out the wrath of an injured dad and it's been pretty quiet from this side of the peanut gallery. ;D Anyhow..thanks for the PM's and other MOC's (methods of communication) from you non-haters and to be fair some of the haters have quietly eased off their stance because they didn't want me to cry on New Years;)

Popps
12-30-2009, 10:54 AM
Where in the **** have you guys been the last 2 days?? I have been spewing out the wrath of an injured dad and it's been pretty quiet from this side of the peanut gallery. ;D Anyhow..thanks for the PM's and other MOC's (methods of communication) from you non-haters and to be fair some of the haters have quietly eased off their stance because they didn't want me to cry on New Years;)

No one hates Chris, that's for sure. But, you said yourself that he's run into some struggles as of late. So, let's hope he (and the whole line) finish strong, and we'll deal with filling the other spots on the line this off-season.

Like you said, you can't talk about those... and I don't blame you. But, as a fan... I can. :)

Clearly, we're look at two new interior starters next year, and I think we have to start wondering if Ryan Harris can make it through a full season.

From my perspective, it still looks like we're struggling with the blocking scheme change. So, more time... and the right guys up front should really help.



Anyway, I hope Chris pancakes whoever is in front of him all afternoon on Sunday!

HEAV
12-30-2009, 10:54 AM
This message is hidden because broncofan7 is on your ignore list.

Just do it. Once he has no one to fight...he will disappear.

Popps
12-30-2009, 10:55 AM
scheme change and the lack of threat under center..which all can be attributed to JOSH MCGENIUS and his failures.



So much hate from the haters, and no real proof of a "massive decline."




I guess we can lock this thread up?

Bronco Yoda
12-30-2009, 10:57 AM
I sure hope things turn around for us in Jan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/netizen/fading_broncos.gif

kupesdad
12-30-2009, 11:11 AM
No one hates Chris, that's for sure. But, you said yourself that he's run into some struggles as of late. So, let's hope he (and the whole line) finish strong, and we'll deal with filling the other spots on the line this off-season.

Like you said, you can't talk about those... and I don't blame you. But, as a fan... I can. :)

Clearly, we're look at two new interior starters next year, and I think we have to start wondering if Ryan Harris can make it through a full season.

From my perspective, it still looks like we're struggling with the blocking scheme change. So, more time... and the right guys up front should really help.

I .

Anyway, I hope Chris pancakes whoever is in front of him all afternoon on Sunday!

I know I just get tired of the people who seem to be looking for bad things to happen to this team. If I had to rate my son's performance this year I would give him a B and that's only be cause of last weeks game. The fact that a lot of you overlook is most of these guys are playing in a condition that if you were in that same condition you wouldn't be going to work. I get to see and hear that week in and week out. I know you guys think that they are a bunch of millionaires but the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years so most of these guys don't get paid past their rookie contract. And now with this CBA bull**** they are looking at an injury away from unemployment.

mr007
12-30-2009, 11:17 AM
Asshat1: Here are all the stats. You can't refute these. This year's team is worse offensively, but only by a field goal. Who cares about field goals?

Asshat2: What about starting field position? Defensive and ST touchdowns? What if we only look at offensive points scored?

Asshat1: Those stats don't count because they don't support my argument.

Asshat3: But what about these other stats regarding yards per play, 3rd down efficiency, etc.

Asshat1: Those also don't count. Nothing to see here. I am right and MY stats prove it.

So awesome. Good morning.

Ummm.... this. Pretty much every thread Popps gets into is like this, good stuff man!! :spit::spit:

baja
12-30-2009, 11:27 AM
My biggest betch with McD is he switched from the ZBS before he had the players to play the new scheme. He should have stayed with what the O line was built for and made the change over next season when he had the correct players.

vancejohnson82
12-30-2009, 11:39 AM
I know I just get tired of the people who seem to be looking for bad things to happen to this team. If I had to rate my son's performance this year I would give him a B and that's only be cause of last weeks game. The fact that a lot of you overlook is most of these guys are playing in a condition that if you were in that same condition you wouldn't be going to work. I get to see and hear that week in and week out. I know you guys think that they are a bunch of millionaires but the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years so most of these guys don't get paid past their rookie contract. And now with this CBA bull**** they are looking at an injury away from unemployment.

the whole line has been banged up and anyone who follows the team closely can see that its attributed to the decline of their play. I thought, however, that they played pretty well last week. As the game progressed, we were giving Orton a lot of time back there. Where the line has struggled all year is with the inside the tackles running game. I'm sure there are a thousand threads about our running game and I don't want to get into it, but the line has done a great job of protecting an immobile QB for most of the year (the exception being the Baltimore and Pittsburgh games).

Harris and Buck going down really hurt us the past couple weeks. Plus our older guys have really started to show their age as the season went on. I haven't seen a lot of negative talk about Kupe though...maybe I missed it. But if it makes any difference for your New Year's celebration, he wouldnt even be in the top 15 of our problems, in my opinion.

Bronco Yoda
12-30-2009, 11:41 AM
My biggest betch with McD is he switched from the ZBS before he had the players to play the new scheme. He should have stayed with what the O line was built for and made the change over next season when he had the correct players.

That's my biatch as well. He tried to do too much too soon. And to then tinkered with something that wasn't even broken. Our O-line was a well-oiled machine. And the ironic travesty in all this.... from my perspective anyways, Moreno is better fit for ZBS.

bronco610
12-30-2009, 12:16 PM
My biggest betch with McD is he switched from the ZBS before he had the players to play the new scheme. He should have stayed with what the O line was built for and made the change over next season when he had the correct players.

Rep !!!!!

bronco610
12-30-2009, 12:18 PM
That's my biatch as well. He tried to do too much too soon. And to then tinkered with something that wasn't even broken. Our O-line was a well-oiled machine. And the ironic travesty in all this.... from my perspective anyways, Moreno is better fit for ZBS.

Rep to you also !!!!!

Hulamau
12-30-2009, 12:50 PM
How DARE you suggest logical things like strength of opponent? How dare you even mention we played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL this year. You sir, are an apologist! Fire McDaniels! Cutler would have taken us to the Super Bowl!!!!!! ROAWOWRWWWOOWOW!!!!!


Yea, I mean... it's been an "epic collapse."

(Trying to remember some of the other phrases I've heard over the past few days.)


I'm just looking for any sort of proof. I'm sure it's true. After all, people have repeated it enough. It must be.

Good thread Popps .. Kaylore

That is what makes me laugh ... the same predictable cadre of the most negative naysayers all during off season who told us over and over how terrible the team was going to be and how we'd be very lucky to win 6 games and more likely 3 to 4 are the same knuckleheads now screaming with both Glee and Disdain about how terrible this team played this year, as if somehow the Broncos didn't play much better than their meager predictions and expectations as it is! :-)

Just a laughable degree of myopic nonsense ...

We played some very tough teams very close this year. and won more difficult games than most any one predicted. Sure I wish we had won at least one or two more and made the playoffs straight up. But simply couldn't sustain what injuries we did and continue to play at a high level.

The good news is, now Josh and Nolan know exactly what they have in this team,and what they need to fix and what players they need to replace and add to the bench to strengthen this team and win a few more next year ... and with a somewhat easier schedule next year as well.

We had some disappointments like the Raider game and the Washington revelation that Chris Simms should have retired two years ago that cost us that game for sure and the playoff spot.

It seems like the Raiders beat us once every year ... and vice versa ... no matter how good or bad either team is over all. Just the nature of the beast most seasons. But Orton getting hurt at the end of teh Redskins first half was the end of that game.

Maybe we draft a new QB too, but Orton is decent enough when you give him the extra time and protection our patchwork line running a split system couldn't provide the last half of the year. That cost us at least two to three more games right there. Not only for the impact on Orton, but even more so killing in the running game.

I expect a new crop of FA's/draft picks to fill in the two lines, perhaps another running back and corner and then the draft. Should be a very interesting off season to see which direction Josh and company go to build on the positives and minimize the weaknesses they now recognize full well.

A luxury he really didn't have when building this first version of the new Broncos.

A real punter is high on the list as well.

ant1999e
12-30-2009, 12:58 PM
This message is hidden because broncofan7 is on your ignore list.

Just do it. Once he has no one to fight...he will disappear.

I did it. It's great.:sunshine:

SportinOne
12-30-2009, 01:29 PM
But, wouldn't less help from the defense naturally lead to more offensive yards, and probably even more scoring, since you'd be playing from behind... and against teams that might be letting up on you with a lead?

Either way, that's just speculation.

The facts are what they are.

None of them support a "massive decline" on offense from last year to this year.

Why would having a bad defense turn into more yards? Less points due to starting in bad field position? Of course. More yards? Where does that even come from? Second, why does it matter if we are playing from behind or not? Unless they are garbage time yards and points, it doesn't matter. We have played from behind all year in 09. What's your point, that those yards and points were easier to get? You are damn right it's speculation, so why even post it to defend your argument.

Your argument is worthless from the beginning. Of course last year's offense was better. But ohhhh, look deeper and it was only a field goal better. Thanks, Popps, already knew that and I'm sure i'm not the only one with the inclination to use google for a 5 second answer. Nice detective work.

Answer this... How would this year's offense look paired with last year's defense? I bet espn team stats doesn't have an answer for you does it? It's okay, as long as you are proud of the team. We tried.

Popps
12-30-2009, 01:40 PM
Why would having a bad defense turn into more yards? .

If you play from behind a lot, you're throwing... and likely moving the ball more. Teams let up, they drop coverage, etc. Very often, marginal QBs on crappy teams have big yardage numbers. (See Cuter in 08)

I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but if we're going to start pulling in every random factor we can think of, let's pull them all in. (Time of possession, etc.)


Your argument is worthless from the beginning. Of course last year's offense was better..

Better? If so, only 3 points better... and a whole lot more turnovers. Is that better? If so, quantify it? I'll tell you how you CAN'T quantify it... "a massive decline."


Answer this... How would this year's offense look paired with last year's defense? .


Ummmmm....... who gives a ****?

That's not the game we're playing. The game we're playing is, "Prove the Massive Decline." Thus far, a lot of very bitter, angry people have posted bitter things just like you.

Yet, here we are... 6 pages later... with no proof of any sort of "massive" decline, and a good argument to be made that there really was none at all, with all things factored in.

Keep ranting if it makes you feel better. Just don't mistake that for proof of anything.

Lolad
12-30-2009, 01:41 PM
Good thread Popps .. Kaylore

That is what makes me laugh ... the same predictable cadre of the most negative naysayers all during off season who told us over and over how terrible the team was going to be and how we'd be very lucky to win 6 games and more likely 3 to 4 are the same knuckleheads now screaming with both Glee and Disdain about how terrible this team played this year, as if somehow the Broncos didn't play much better than their meager predictions and expectations as it is! :-)

Just a laughable degree of myopic nonsense ...

We played some very tough teams very close this year. and won more difficult games than most any one predicted. Sure I wish we had won at least one or two more and made the playoffs straight up. But simply couldn't sustain what injuries we did and continue to play at a high level.

The good news is, now Josh and Nolan know exactly what they have in this team,and what they need to fix and what players they need to replace and add to the bench to strengthen this team and win a few more next year ... and with a somewhat easier schedule next year as well.

We had some disappointments like the Raider game and the Washington revelation that Chris Simms should have retired two years ago that cost us that game for sure and the playoff spot.

It seems like the Raiders beat us once every year ... and vice versa ... no matter how good or bad either team is over all. Just the nature of the beast most seasons. But Orton getting hurt at the end of teh Redskins first half was the end of that game.

Maybe we draft a new QB too, but Orton is decent enough when you give him the extra time and protection our patchwork line running a split system couldn't provide the last half of the year. That cost us at least two to three more games right there. Not only for the impact on Orton, but even more so killing in the running game.

I expect a new crop of FA's/draft picks to fill in the two lines, perhaps another running back and corner and then the draft. Should be a very interesting off season to see which direction Josh and company go to build on the positives and minimize the weaknesses they now recognize full well.

A luxury he really didn't have when building this first version of the new Broncos.

A real punter is high on the list as well.

See that's where some of you get things wrong. I still predicted us to finish better than last year unlike some of you who expected 6-7 wins. If we didn't improve, this season was a failure you can check my post.

In saying that our record has improved but our Offense has "declined" Lets stop drinking the koolaid and call a spade a spade. There is nothing wrong with questioning some of the moves McDaniels has made or the Broncos Organization. That doesn't make us haters it makes us fans! We all want the same damn thing for the Broncos to win a Super Bowl how we get there we may differ. But don't expect us to confuse the smell of **** with roses!

Popps
12-30-2009, 01:45 PM
See that's where some of you get things wrong. I still predicted us to finish better than last year unlike some of you who expected 6-7 wins. If we didn't improve, this season was a failure you can check my post.

In saying that our record has improved but our Offense has "declined" Lets stop drinking the koolaid and call a spade a spade. There is nothing wrong with questioning some of the moves McDaniels has made or the Broncos Organization. That doesn't make us haters it makes us fans! We all want the same damn thing for the Broncos to win a Super Bowl how we get there we may differ. But don't expect us to confuse the smell of **** with roses!

I agree with that. We clearly could have done a better job getting our O-line ready this year, and our offense DOES need to improve. That's a given.

However, the thread was specifically designed to debunk a silly myth that's been perpetrated around here. Our offense wasn't remotely special last year, and it's not special this year. We did some things better last year, we do some things better this year. In MY OPINION, I'd prefer an offense that takes better care of the ball to the sloppy **** we threw on the field last season.

But, opinions aside... simple logic and stats tell us there was no "massive decline" of any sort. Hopefully we can put that to rest and start talking intelligently about this team, and how to improve it.

SportinOne
12-30-2009, 01:47 PM
So much hate from the haters, and no real proof of a "massive decline."




I guess we can lock this thread up?

Here's the massive decline that we are most concerned with, grampps.

6-0

to

8-7, and needing a miracle to make the playoffs.

Our defense has kept us in games, and it has given us chances to win quite a few of the games that we lost. So. What is the problem here?

Answer A: (you fill in)

Now, what was the main problem last year?

Answer B: (you fill in)

Answer A and B are different, aren't they, grampps?

Tombstone RJ
12-30-2009, 01:49 PM
I know I just get tired of the people who seem to be looking for bad things to happen to this team. If I had to rate my son's performance this year I would give him a B and that's only be cause of last weeks game. The fact that a lot of you overlook is most of these guys are playing in a condition that if you were in that same condition you wouldn't be going to work. I get to see and hear that week in and week out. I know you guys think that they are a bunch of millionaires but the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years so most of these guys don't get paid past their rookie contract. And now with this CBA bull**** they are looking at an injury away from unemployment.

Yep. And offensive lineman go through a tremendous amount of abuse game in and game out, and they are the least likely players to get big contracts (guards especially).

In the NFL, you are one play away from never playing again, never walking again, never breathing again, etc. The new collective bargaining agreement needs to take long term health issues into account. Vets who sacrifice their bodies need to be making the most money, not the vet minimum IMHO, especially on the offensive and defensive lines. It's brutal in there.

mr007
12-30-2009, 01:49 PM
That's not the game we're playing. The game we're playing is, "Prove the Massive Decline." Thus far, a lot of very bitter, angry people have posted bitter things just like you.


Here you go:

25% reduction in 3rd down efficiency.
-3pts offensive scoring while having a +25 turnover differential compared with last year
20% decline in red zone despite having a "safer" QB

To me, this substantiates a pretty significant decline.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 01:54 PM
Our defense has kept us in games, and it has given us chances to win quite a few of the games that we lost.

Several? Try two (Oakland and Philly). And in one of the two (Philly), they gave up 30 pts, so let's not go blaming that one solely on the offense while praising the defense that played like absolute dog crap for about 40 minutes.

Defense didn't exactly blow anyone's skirts up in the rest of the losses.

SportinOne
12-30-2009, 02:12 PM
We had to sit and listen all preseason about how Jay Cutler was a LOSER OF A QB. And that, no matter what the defense looked like, he should have willed us to victory like Peyton Manning did all those years.

Now we have Orton. He has a better defense. Much better. Yet, when we have needed him to be a winner for us he has simply not risen to the occasion.

Don't give me the Cincy game. That was all luck and all Stokely.
Don't give me Dallas. That was all Marshall.

He has had one throw all year that I would consider "answering the call", and that was Scheffler against San Diego, the time we didn't get blown out.

Broncomutt
12-30-2009, 02:20 PM
Several? Try two (Oakland and Philly). And in one of the two (Philly), they gave up 30 pts, so let's not go blaming that one solely on the offense while praising the defense that played like absolute dog crap for about 40 minutes.

Defense didn't exactly blow anyone's skirts up in the rest of the losses.

The Baltimore game our defense had only allowed only 3 field goals going into the 4th quarter. (Ravens had a TD, but that was a KO return)

The Washington game the defense had allowed only 1 touchdown until Simms came in and started moving the offense...backwards.

Steeler game we were trailing only 14-10 to start the 4th quarter. Our defense was responsible for the sole Broncos touchdown that day. The offense managed just 3 points all day.

Defense had held the Chargers to 13 points until late in the third quarter as well. Once again, the offense managed just 3 points all day.

Not saying the defense is a beast, but they have been betrayed on more than just 2 occasions.

Beantown Bronco
12-30-2009, 02:31 PM
We had to sit and listen all preseason about how Jay Cutler was a LOSER OF A QB. And that, no matter what the defense looked like, he should have willed us to victory like Peyton Manning did all those years.

Now we have Orton. He has a better defense. Much better. Yet, when we have needed him to be a winner for us he has simply not risen to the occasion.

That much better defense was great the first 4 weeks plus the Giants and KC games. OK in the Pats and first Chargers games. Not very good to the tune of 28 pts per game in the losses. Better than last year? Sure. But not consistently.

But don't leave out: Orton is dealing with a worse performing OLine and running game. That simply cannot be ignored.

Don't give me the Cincy game. That was all luck and all Stokely.Don't give me Dallas. That was all Marshall.

He has had one throw all year that I would consider "answering the call", and that was Scheffler against San Diego, the time we didn't get blown out.

I'm glad Marshall threw himself the ball.

Let's ignore how he did against New England, SD, NY and how he had us on pace for 34 pts against Washington (what was the #2 passing defense in the league at the time) before going down with injury. Or how he helped us come back against Oakland, Indy and Philly only to be let down by the defense when they gave up late scores. It goes both ways.

2KBack
12-30-2009, 02:45 PM
That much better defense was great the first 4 weeks plus the Giants and KC games. OK in the Pats and first Chargers games. Not very good to the tune of 28 pts per game in the losses. Better than last year? Sure. But not consistently.

But don't leave out: Orton is dealing with a worse performing OLine and running game. That simply cannot be ignored.



I'm glad Marshall threw himself the ball.

Let's ignore how he did against New England, SD, NY and how he had us on pace for 34 pts against Washington (what was the #2 passing defense in the league at the time) before going down with injury. Or how he helped us come back against Oakland, Indy and Philly only to be let down by the defense when they gave up late scores. It goes both ways.

Seriously, all three of those games were won on the last posession of the game, when the defense was scored on. The defense has been amazing in stretches, but the single most important drives (the last ones) in all 3 of those games they laid an egg.

jhns
12-30-2009, 02:56 PM
You guys are arguing for nothing. Adam Shefter has spoken. Even he said the offense(QB) is what is holding the team back in this QB driven league. That isn't said about a productive offense. It wasn't said about last years offense until you all got your feelings hurt half way through the offseason.

Also, who was his contact at the Broncos? He hasn't been around much this year so I'm just wondering if it left with Shanahan or if he will still be giving good info. He has always been fast and reliable with breaking news about the Broncos. Not that anyone would know this but I figure it's worth a shot asking. Maybe he is known to be good friends with Bowlen or someone on staff.

Popps
12-30-2009, 03:07 PM
Seriously, all three of those games were won on the last posession of the game, when the defense was scored on. The defense has been amazing in stretches, but the single most important drives (the last ones) in all 3 of those games they laid an egg.

Yea, I'm usually quick to jump on a defense in those situations and it was definitely disappointing. (Particularly the Oakland game, of course.)

But, in a couple of those games... we really owe the defense for being in them.

Against Philly, we had a chance to punch it in for a TD to go ahead, and had to settle for a FG. (Familiar story.)

We need to improve both sides of the ball. Not a big surprise, considering it's the first year of a total organizational re-do.

Still, lots of encouraging signs.

Broncos4tw
12-30-2009, 03:38 PM
What killed us last year was turnovers. That is, not getting any, even if we gave about about the average amount. Second to last in the league in getting turnovers.

This year we are much better. We've given our offense MANY more opportunities to get points than last year. And the result? We have less points than last year. I'd call that a decline.

I don't blame McD though, other than him bungling the QB situation, and leaving us with a crappy, mediocre QB with Marshall tunnel vision, his strongest pass being a 1 yard screen.

Popps
12-30-2009, 03:45 PM
Here's the massive decline that we are most concerned with, grampps.

6-0

to

8-7, and needing a miracle to make the playoffs.

Our defense has kept us in games, and it has given us chances to win quite a few of the games that we lost. So. What is the problem here?

Answer A: (you fill in)

Now, what was the main problem last year?

Answer B: (you fill in)

Answer A and B are different, aren't they, grampps?


Let me see.... hmm....

nope.


No proof of a "massive decline."

Sorry, "champ." (I use that term loosely.)

Better luck next thread.

Stay bitter though, brother. Keep the anger alive!!

Popps
12-30-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't blame McD though, other than him bungling the QB situation.

By "bungling," I assume you mean replacing our old, ineffective QB with an effective one?

You're probably right, though. Jay's 26 INTs would have really helped us out this season.

elsid13
12-30-2009, 04:05 PM
So last year I did radar chart analysis to compare relative effectiveness of the offenses that a lot of you liked. I redid it today (adding Strength of Schedule (SOS), and 3rd down %). All the data is from ESPN or NFL site. The less area covered means the better the offense. Teams done - Denver 09, Denver 08, New Orleans and KC. In general the 08 offense is better, because of the yards per carry (OL driven) and 3rd down conversion percentage (QB driven).

gyldenlove
12-30-2009, 04:39 PM
So last year I did radar chart analysis to compare relative effectiveness of the offenses that a lot of you liked. I redid it today (adding Strength of Schedule (SOS), and 3rd down %). All the data is from ESPN or NFL site. The less area covered means the better the offense. Teams done - Denver 09, Denver 08, New Orleans and KC. In general the 08 offense is better, because of the yards per carry (OL driven) and 3rd down conversion percentage (QB driven).

Something is mixed up there, the Den08 offense should be better than the 09 in scoring, for some reason they are reversed.

elsid13
12-30-2009, 04:46 PM
Something is mixed up there, the Den08 offense should be better than the 09 in scoring, for some reason they are reversed.

Used the wrong number. Was looking at someone else. I will update the chart in second.

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 04:48 PM
Here's the massive decline that we are most concerned with, grampps.

6-0

to

8-7, and needing a miracle to make the playoffs.

Our defense has kept us in games, and it has given us chances to win quite a few of the games that we lost. So. What is the problem here?

Answer A: (you fill in)

Now, what was the main problem last year?

Answer B: (you fill in)

Answer A and B are different, aren't they, grampps?

succinct and perfect--END THREAD. I bow to your greatness...i

broncofan7
12-30-2009, 04:50 PM
Let me see.... hmm....

nope.


No proof of a "massive decline."

Sorry, "champ." (I use that term loosely.)

Better luck next thread.

Stay bitter though, brother. Keep the anger alive!!

you've got nothing--his single post DISCREDITS YOUR ENTIRE THREAD PREMISE. I wish I would have thought to frame it in such a way... answer his question---and you too can see your ineptitude..........

Broncos4tw
12-30-2009, 04:59 PM
By "bungling," I assume you mean replacing our old, ineffective QB with an effective one?

You're probably right, though. Jay's 26 INTs would have really helped us out this season.

There is a lot more to the QB position than not tossing Ints. By the way, the fumbles due to his utter lack of any pocket presence count as well.

Can I trust Orton to play really, really REALLY really safe? Yea. Does safe win tough games against good teams? Not very often.

Bob's your Information Minister
12-30-2009, 05:02 PM
Popps is completely ignoring the effect improved defense and special teams would have on last year's offense.

Popps
12-30-2009, 05:07 PM
you've got nothing--his single post DISCREDITS YOUR ENTIRE THREAD PREMISE..

Incorrect.

The thread premise was not "how strong did we finish the season."

If that were the case, you would see that our offense has scored more points in the last 7 games this year than last year.

His response was simply packaged anger and random, unrelated stats.

The premise is that there was no "massive offensive collapse."

The reason no one can disprove that premise is that the data to disprove it does not exist.

Lolad
12-30-2009, 05:11 PM
I agree with that. We clearly could have done a better job getting our O-line ready this year, and our offense DOES need to improve. That's a given.

However, the thread was specifically designed to debunk a silly myth that's been perpetrated around here. Our offense wasn't remotely special last year, and it's not special this year. We did some things better last year, we do some things better this year. In MY OPINION, I'd prefer an offense that takes better care of the ball to the sloppy **** we threw on the field last season.

But, opinions aside... simple logic and stats tell us there was no "massive decline" of any sort. Hopefully we can put that to rest and start talking intelligently about this team, and how to improve it.

This is where we differ. Last year our offense was special, which is proven by the STATS we were top 10 in almost every statistical category on offense except for the red zone. Which we all know was Cutlers weakness because he was a young QB (2nd full year starting) and we lost our run game. The STATS back that up to because going into the Atlanta game we were still top 10 in Red Zone scoring

Popps
12-30-2009, 05:18 PM
Popps is completely ignoring the effect improved defense and special teams would have on last year's offense.

Incorrect.

Conversely, I've mentioned several times that we're a more complete team, which has been assisted by an offense that does not put our defense in bad positions nearly as often.

So, wrong.. and not even close.

Boob, you stick to poo-poo-face name calling, O.K. kid? This is a big-boy thread.

Bob's your Information Minister
12-30-2009, 06:06 PM
Incorrect.



So where is the admission that if last year's offense was backed up by this year's defense that the Broncos would not only be a better team, but a higher-scoring team?

Fail, Popps. Fail.

Taco John
12-30-2009, 06:12 PM
Owned by Bob :pity:

Taco John
12-30-2009, 06:14 PM
The worst part is that Bob is using the basis of Popps whole defense of Plummer to evicerate him.

Popps
12-30-2009, 06:54 PM
So where is the admission that if last year's offense was backed up by this year's defense that the Broncos would not only be a better team, but a higher-scoring team?

Fail, Popps. Fail.

Sorry fats, if you're looking for fantasy football, that's a different thread.

We're not talking about "what if's."

We're talking about a simple fact...

There has been no "massive offensive decline."

None exists, none can be proven.

Keep your imagination for you DnD meetings, Boob. We're talking about facts, here. That fact is that there has been no "massive decline" in offense from last season.

Again, 3 points different in average... offset by considerably less turnovers.

Massive? I think not.

Sorry.

Popps
12-30-2009, 06:56 PM
The worst part is that Bob is using the basis of Popps whole defense of Plummer to evicerate him.

Your fat twin is arguing something completely off-topic. So, while I realize that you side with Bob on almost all things football, you're barking up the wrong tree here.


Hey, I'm ready, though. When someone can show me that our scoring went down 10 points a week or more... or that we went from the top 5 in scoring to the bottom 5, I'm ready to admit a "massive decline."

Yet, oddly... all people can come up with is bitterness and imaginary, fantasy football questions.

strafen
12-30-2009, 07:06 PM
Where does our offense rank this year in the NFL compared to last year?
That should evidence whether we have a decline or not...

Bob's your Information Minister
12-30-2009, 07:36 PM
That fact is that there has been no "massive decline" in offense from last season.

Again, 3 points different in average... offset by considerably less turnovers.


Why are you completely ignoring field position?

The only reason the Broncos came close to beating the Eagles last week is because you had scoring drives of 35, 25, 16 and 28 yards.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You give last year's Broncos' offense that kind of field position and they beat the Eagles.

Popps
12-30-2009, 08:25 PM
Why are you completely ignoring field position?
.

I don't know. Did you factor in how many times Cutler put our defense in ****-holes with his 20+ INT/fumbles?


Again,

-Point - similar
-Time of possession - better this year
-Turnovers - better this year
-Wins - likely better this year
-Points in the 2nd half - better this year
-Margin of losses in the 2nd half - better this year

Any time you want to show me the "massive decline," I'm ready to listen, fatty. That kind of information would include...

-Going from the top 5 in scoring to the bottom 5
- +/- ratio considerably worse

Things like that indicate a "massive offensive decline."

Nonsense like, "dude, but if Jay Cutler had the 85 Bears defense... bla bla bla".... doesn't count as statistical proof of a defense that had "massive" declines.


"Massive decline" implies greatness that turned into something at or near the bottom of the barrel.

No such thing has happened.

Keep yappin', but until you provide the data... it doesn't mean ****.

bpc
12-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Wow. Bob is owning Popps. Not surprised. Popps agenda has put him in many precarious positions while arguing, yet he continues on his hate parade.

Popps
12-30-2009, 10:23 PM
Wow. Bob is owning Popps. Not surprised. Popps agenda has put him in many precarious positions while arguing, yet he continues on his hate parade.

Again, just because your views line up across the board with our resident Chiefs idiot doesn't make his points valid.

He was unable to provide any proof to support the "massive decline" theory.

He played fantasy DnD football, creating counter-questions instead of providing proof.

You and Bob should hang out, man. A lot in common. Crappy takes... hate the Broncos, etc.

Bob's your Information Minister
12-30-2009, 10:46 PM
How about third-down conversion rate?

This year the Broncos are 23rd in third-down conversion rate. Last season they were THIRD.

That's what I call a massive decline.

If your defense didn't set up your pathetic offense in so many good situations you wouldn't be averaging 20 points a game.

Popps
12-30-2009, 10:49 PM
How about third-down conversion rate?

This year the Broncos are 23rd in third-down conversion rate. Last season they were THIRD.

That's what I call a massive decline.

If your defense didn't set up your pathetic offense in so many good situations you wouldn't be averaging 20 points a game.

Sure, and we turned the ball over last year at a "massive" rate, too.


So, we can cherry-pick, but I've yet to hear proof that last year's offense was stellar and this year's is ****.



3 points, with considerably more turnovers.



Let me know when you've got the facts, Bob.

By the way, I didn't realize you were such a fan of ours last season. Seems like you spent most of the year calling our team dog****.

Bob's your Information Minister
12-30-2009, 10:54 PM
3 points, with considerably more turnovers.
.

Do you not understand how defense and special teams factor into scoring output, though?

That's why the best indicator of offensive success is always total yards. Turnovers and field position factor into scoring output.

Come on, this isn't rocket science, Popps.

strafen
12-30-2009, 11:30 PM
Here are the facts that I'm sure Popps will find a way to explain away and keep us going on another wild goose chase.

2008 Offense:
Points scored: 370 pts 23.1 ppg 16th in the NFL
Passing: 4471 yards, 25 TD's
Rushing: 1862 yards 4.8 ypa 15TD's

2009 Offense to-date:
Points scored: 302 pts 20.1 ppg 19th in the NFL
Passing: 3199 yards, 20 TD's
Rushing: 1752 yards, 4.2 ypa 7 TD's

Taco John
12-31-2009, 12:23 AM
Popps, from a pure points production standpoint, everybody would have to agree that you make a strong point. While there has been a decline in our points production, it isn't by any stretch "massive."

But the statistical gates that you are using are very constrained. You're ignoring the bigger picture in order to make the smaller picture look nice.

At the end of last season, you could have asked anyone and they'd tell you something along these lines: "we have our offense set and going in the right direction, and now all we need is to plug a half decent defense onto this thing, and we are a playoff team."

Well, we managed to plug the defense on, but the problem is that in doing so, our offense has shown serious signs of regression. I think mr008 did a good job of highlighting that decline:


Here you go:

25% reduction in 3rd down efficiency.

-3pts offensive scoring while having a +25 turnover differential compared with last year

20% decline in red zone despite having a "safer" QB

To me, this substantiates a pretty significant decline.

It's my hunch that this trend would be played out in greater detail if you looked at drives that started from our side of the field from last year and this year. It's easy enough to use stats to try and isolate the offenses effectiveness without the help of defense.

I would wager that if you did that, there'd be a much greater scoring disparity between the two teams. I could be wrong.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:35 AM
Here you go:

25% reduction in 3rd down efficiency.
-3pts offensive scoring while having a +25 turnover differential compared with last year
20% decline in red zone despite having a "safer" QB

To me, this substantiates a pretty significant decline.I'm surprised to see our 3rd down efficiency gone down like that.
I thought Moreno has been the best short yardage runner we've got in the last two seasons?
WTF? Who is lying here? ;)

Popps
12-31-2009, 12:38 AM
The thing is, Taco... it's not like I'm using obscure stats. I'm using point production and turnovers. Find me two that are more important.

On the flip-side, there is NO QUESTION that we're having some struggles on offense. Though, I'm watching the Philly replay right now, and honestly... we don't look bad for a team with a beat up line.

I think you get my point here, Taco. There isn't any question that our offense could be more dynamic and quicker-striking last season, but we also had a lot of deficiencies. (Couldn't run, couldn't score, turning the ball over.)

I'm not remotely implying our offense is where it needs to be. But, we weren't last year, either.

We're doing some things better, and struggling with others. That's not entirely surprising... less than a full season into a scheme.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:41 AM
Here you go:

25% reduction in 3rd down efficiency.
-3pts offensive scoring while having a +25 turnover differential compared with last year
20% decline in red zone despite having a "safer" QB

To me, this substantiates a pretty significant decline.Two of our seven losses this season so far, have been by 3 points or less.
On a bigger picture, 3 points represents 48 points in a season.
Yes, 3 points are significant. It could've been the difference between us being 10-5 right now and 8-7 which is where we actually are

And as Taco mentioned, all we needed was at least a middle of the pack defense for us to be contenders.
Guess what?
We've got better than middle of the pack defense this year, and our offense stinks!

Mecklomaniac
12-31-2009, 12:44 AM
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than illumination”. Andrew Lang

“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” Evan Esar

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" Mark Twain



Using only the stats that support your point of view is a convenient way of hiding from the truth.

It keeps getting argued that since turnovers improved, there was only a 15% drop in scoring, and time of possesion slightly improved, that the offensive hasn't drastically declined.

When you look at all the other offensive categories though (total yards, yards per play, 3rd conver%, red zone scoring %, sacks, touchdowns, rankings, etc) it shows a different story.

Even though the scoring stats only show a 3 point drop, that is the difference between losing to Oakland and Phil, and winning or going to OT.


Last years offense had a creditable chance on any possession of scoring. This year can you honestly say you felt the team was able to take the ball at the end of a game and drive it down the field?


Dink, Dunk Punt...

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:49 AM
The thing is, Taco... it's not like I'm using obscure stats. I'm using point production and turnovers. Find me two that are more important.

On the flip-side, there is NO QUESTION that we're having some struggles on offense. Though, I'm watching the Philly replay right now, and honestly... we don't look bad for a team with a beat up line.

I think you get my point here, Taco. There isn't any question that our offense could be more dynamic and quicker-striking last season, but we also had a lot of deficiencies. (Couldn't run, couldn't score, turning the ball over.)

I'm not remotely implying our offense is where it needs to be. But, we weren't last year, either.

We're doing some things better, and struggling with others. That's not entirely surprising... less than a full season into a scheme.Our offense was better than good last year, man.
We had two glaring problems to fix..
1- Cutlers turnovers
2- Injuries to our running backs

Yet, when you still undermine the fact that with a -25 turnover ratio last year, to be 16th in the NFL scoring, despite having a defense that kept our offense off the field most of the time, you've got to concede the fact that this is indeed a major decline in offensive output compared to last year...

Archer81
12-31-2009, 12:57 AM
Our offense was better than good last year, man.
We had two glaring problems to fix..
1- Cutlers turnovers
2- Injuries to our running backs

Yet, when you still undermine the fact that with a -25 turnover ratio last year, to be 16th in the NFL scoring, despite having a defense that kept our offense off the field most of the time, you've got to concede the fact that this is indeed a major decline in offensive output compared to last year...


You could argue having an offense that continually put a bad defense on the field led to a majority of the scoring issues last season.

:Broncos:

24champ
12-31-2009, 12:57 AM
That's one season. He's still had several others that have been successful despite poor defenses.

The 2001 comparison is pretty solid, considering it was the worst defense in the league, also last in about every defensive category (sound familiar?). Even the best QB in the game in this current era couldn't get his team anywhere when his defense sucked hindtit. He'd more than likely do the same with last years defense on his side.

KC - Inexcusable to allow 198 yards rushing.

Jags - Couldn't stop Taylor. CHOKED.

Miami - We got Robbed on a PI call, I suppose it cancels out the bad call with SD earlier that year

Again, see above.

A game that Cutler single- handedly loses for us if it wasn't for the gift of the year from the refs.

I recall Cutler still needing to throw a 2 pt. conversion to win the game, that was clutch. You and Popps can go cry with the Charger fans about it, I was happy as hell we won. Bad calls happen in every game (see the last Eagles game), just happens that we got the benefit of a bad call. Still had to make that 2 point conversion.

Our defense scored a touchdown in a game that ultimately came down to less than a field goal, plus they held firm on the Saints final drive, forcing them into a long field goal that they ultimately missed. There was also a monumental goal line stand early in that game.

Brees may have carved them up through the air, but they provided us with a touchdown, kept the ground game in check and ultimately held firm when it counted.


Ask yourself this question when it comes to that Saints game, do you think this current offense can outgun the Saints when the Defense is getting sliced and diced by Drew Brees?

Our offense didn't show up for this game either. I'll give them a pass since Cutler got ****ed up on the first series.

Our defense sucked in that game, no excuses for it. I mean it's amazing you give them a pass on games like this where they get blown to bits, and yet in other posts you completely rip into Slowik for his crappy defense. What gives?:rofl:


Oh yeah, how about that Buffalo game?

13-0 lead...guess who crapped the bed? Slowik and the D. 13-3 and Prater missed a long FG under 2 minutes...you find out what happened next. :giggle:


What's the problem with that? Both of them were spread quarterbacks at Purdue who ended up in west coast offenses not suited to their strengths before moving on to spread offense teams. Brees has lit up the league since making the switch, so why can't we expect Orton to be our QBOTF?

Also if you want to compare their scouting reports (I have) you'll see that the physical talent gap there is minimal.

The problem with that....is well sounds pretty bat**** crazy pal. :giggle:

I haven't seen anything from Orton this season that made me go, hmmm he could be the next Drew Brees. I don't see him getting to that level at all. He can improve under McD, but it's quite a reach to get to Drew Brees status. Brees was doing pretty well in San Diego (Pro Bowl seasons) before signing with the Saints unlike Orton's years in the NFL.


How is that a valid comparison? We jumped all over the Raiders in the MNF game, so why not continue with what was working? In the game in Denver we were tied up at zero after the first quarter and went into the half down 10-3. That gameplan wasn't working yet we continued to do the same damn thing in the 2nd half and we got stomped.

We got stomped both times, except this year we couldn't run the ball, even though it was evident that wasn't productive and our defense this year choked in the game. Same song different tune.

Florida_Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:42 AM
KC - Inexcusable to allow 198 yards rushing. What do you expect when the offense REPEATEDLY gave the ball back to the Chiefs. They did nothing in that game, yet the defense kept things relatively close.

Jags - Couldn't stop Taylor. CHOKED. And again, the offense was ineffective all game, backing an already poor defense into the corner.

Miami - We got Robbed on a PI call, I suppose it cancels out the bad call with SD earlier that year I'd give them that, if the offense hadn't sucked all game to begin with.

I recall Cutler still needing to throw a 2 pt. conversion to win the game, that was clutch. You and Popps can go cry with the Charger fans about it, I was happy as hell we won. Bad calls happen in every game (see the last Eagles game), just happens that we got the benefit of a bad call. Still had to make that 2 point conversion. I was ecstatic that we won too, but I can be objective enough to see that if the correct call is made the game ends there and Cutler's ****up doesn't allow for that "clutch" play.

Ask yourself this question when it comes to that Saints game, do you think this current offense can outgun the Saints when the Defense is getting sliced and diced by Drew Brees? I don't think the 2008 Broncos offense would keep pace with the 09 Saints.

Our defense sucked in that game, no excuses for it. I mean it's amazing you give them a pass on games like this where they get blown to bits, and yet in other posts you completely rip into Slowik for his crappy defense. What gives?:rofl: Slowik gets the blame for the short bus defensive schemes he ran and just being a moron in general. The players get the blame for generally having a lack of heart and their poor play.

The offense gets the blame for coming up lame in so many games and putting our defense into tough situations. By your own admission, Shanahan wanted a dynasty level offense that could outscore teams while we (supposedly) rebuilt the defense. Well that dynasty level offense turned out to be a middle of the pack failure and we couldn't compensate with the defense.

13-0 lead...guess who crapped the bed? Slowik and the D. 13-3 and Prater missed a long FG under 2 minutes...you find out what happened next. :giggle:Cutler threw a pick late in that game and then missed a wide open Stokley on the last drive.

The problem with that....is well sounds pretty bat**** crazy pal. :giggle: You call it what you want, but I clearly laid out the reasoning for the comparison and it's about as solid as it comes.

I haven't seen anything from Orton this season that made me go, hmmm he could be the next Drew Brees. I don't see him getting to that level at all. He can improve under McD, but it's quite a reach to get to Drew Brees status. Brees was doing pretty well in San Diego (Pro Bowl seasons) before signing with the Saints unlike Orton's years in the NFL.[/QUOTE] He doesn't need to reach Brees' level, nor is it likely that he will.


We got stomped both times, except this year we couldn't run the ball, even though it was evident that wasn't productive and our defense this year choked in the game. Same song different tune. We didn't get stomped this year. Losing by 1 point is not a stomping. Now losing by 21 points? Yeah, that's a stomping.

Taco John
12-31-2009, 03:55 AM
The thing is, Taco... it's not like I'm using obscure stats. I'm using point production and turnovers. Find me two that are more important.

On the flip-side, there is NO QUESTION that we're having some struggles on offense. Though, I'm watching the Philly replay right now, and honestly... we don't look bad for a team with a beat up line.

I think you get my point here, Taco. There isn't any question that our offense could be more dynamic and quicker-striking last season, but we also had a lot of deficiencies. (Couldn't run, couldn't score, turning the ball over.)

I'm not remotely implying our offense is where it needs to be. But, we weren't last year, either.

We're doing some things better, and struggling with others. That's not entirely surprising... less than a full season into a scheme.


From what I can tell, we've effectively rearranged deck chairs on a ship that is taking on water. We've improved the defense, and downgraded the offense, and the end result is a team very similar to last year's team - the one that lost 8 runningbacks to injury and was forced into a one-dimensional pass happy mode.

So we've effectively made a lateral move from last year to this.

Which is fine. I mean, I'm not completely cool with it. I still think that it was a mistake not to give Shanahan one more year to work out the kinks as he groomed his new quarterback and brought his new DC online - but whatever. The reset button has been hit, and we are where we are. At the end of the day, I understand that we've got a new coach, and expecting him to take a team from mediocre to above average or better is a big job that might take more than one season. (I can't help it, even when I try to be sincere, my natural cynicism kicks in).

My concern is that in McDaniels inexperience, he's biting off more than he can chew and changing too much too fast. I don't understand the point of keeping Dennison around if we're not going to use him. Dennison is probably a top 5 ZBS coaches in the league - if not two. How many games did the O-line switch cost us? Even one is one too many right now.

Hillis for that matter too. What's the point of keeping him around if you're not going to find a way to get creative with him? He's a five tool talent on a runningback squad that hasn't been a model of consistency. Pairing Hillis up with Larsen in a power set could have been a great change of pace during the season. Not to mention mixing Hillis and Moreno together, while keeping Moreno and Buckhalter as the feature set. Instead, we saw more and more tired unimaginative screen passes. One thing this season did for me was confirm an understanding for me of why Shanahan shunned the screen pass in his offense.

I personally felt that this season, we'd have been moving under year 3 of a 5 year arc towards the Superbowl under the previous regime. Right now, I feel like we're at year 1 at best. That's frustrating. I like some of the things that I see, but I'm very skeptical of some of the others.

The fun thing about this team is that Bowlen gives his coaches the power to operate. If nothing else, I'm excited to see the decisions that Josh makes, and watching this thing unfold further. I hope that he's right that abandoning an offensive line system that has produced so much for this franchise is the smart/right thing to do.

Steve Prefontaine
12-31-2009, 07:07 AM
I think this might be the first time I've seen Boob own someone on the Mane. Sorry Popps.

jhns
12-31-2009, 07:09 AM
You could argue having an offense that continually put a bad defense on the field led to a majority of the scoring issues last season.

:Broncos:

Not really. The facts say otherwise. Our defense saw the 7th fewest drives in the league when they gave up the most points in Bronco history. Our offense had the 32nd ranked starting field position and with a bad special teams, still made up 16 places to give the defense the 16th best starting field position. I don't see how our offense made it so hard for the defense. I think the defense/special teams were just that bad.

As for the other arguments, why don't you try watching the games if you don't see the decline. We now need to replace more players than we did after last season and all of the young players other than Marshall have regressed. Arguing that we haven't had a decline makes it seem like you don't even watch the games. We won 8 games with offense alone last year. We had the teams worst ever defense and a crap special teams. We now have a top defense and decent special teams, we have only won the same number of games. Do the math, it isn't that hard to figure out.

Steve Prefontaine
12-31-2009, 07:12 AM
Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.


As many have already pointed out regarding that silly 3 point per game difference...

An extra FG gives Denver a win vs Oakland and Denver would be in the playoffs. Heck, that Philly game might go to OT. But whatever, it's just 3 points I guess.

CEH
12-31-2009, 07:42 AM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.
In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.
In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.
Difference? One field goal per game.
One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.
What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?
2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)
2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)
Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)
Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?
I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?
Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points
Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points

So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)
Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?
Either way, it's nice to know the truth.



3 points is huge in the NFL when the avg margin of victory is 3-4 points when good teams play.

Belcheck's three Super Bowls were all won by 3 points

3 points is all about situational football and that is McD #1 core value that he stresses everyday so go tell Josh 3 points is no big deal.

3 points also gets you an outright win in Cincy 9-7. The NE game outright. A 20-10 lead against Dallas the last couple plays don't not matter.

3 points and we are looking at an 11-5 football team. 3 points is huge

FUrthermore, Cutler's INT rate per pass attempt was on par with other QBs so it's a fallacy that he was a turnover machine. Yes he did make the untimely turnover but he also had the 3rd best 3rd down conversion rate in the NFL this year it would be right behind Indy for #2.

Plus with a stud #1 RB (allegedly), and twice as many turnovers per game this O would be scoring 4-6 points more than the '09 version

Here's a stat when a team has a +2 or more turnover differential they win 80 % of the time. We lost 3 games (Indy, Oak, Philly) with that stat. That comes right back to offense. Win just one and we are in the playoffs

Popcorn Sutton
12-31-2009, 07:48 AM
As many have already pointed out regarding that silly 3 point per game difference...

An extra FG gives Denver a win vs Oakland and Denver would be in the playoffs. Heck, that Philly game might go to OT. But whatever, it's just 3 points I guess.

The same could be said about the 10 turnovers from last year.

How many of those turnovers came at inopportune times and costs us games last season?

Overall, minus the first 3 games last season the scoring was the same and the turnovers were 10 less. It wasn't the offensive implosion that some have made it out to be.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 07:50 AM
3 points and we are looking at an 11-5 football team. 3 points is huge

You really need to explain that one. We only lost one game by less than 3 pts, and didn't lose any of the games you cited above, so another 3 pts in those games just means they would've won by more than they did. You don't get any more credit for that.

Plus with a stud #1 RB (allegedly), and twice as many turnovers per game this O would be scoring 4-6 points more than the '09 version

Let's just ignore the fact that their 2009 opponents' defenses are giving up 3 fewer points on average than the 2008 opponents did.

Here's a stat when a team has a +2 or more turnover differential they win 80 % of the time. We lost 3 games (Indy, Oak, Philly) with that stat. That comes right back to offense. Win just one and we are in the playoffs

Ummmm, you can't have such a good turnover ratio without having an offense that doesn't turn it over themselves. Let's not forget that the defense is just half of the equation when you are talking about turnover ratio. And let's not forget how many points the defense gave up in those games. The Raider game was their best game and yet even in that one, they gave up a TD to the worst QB in the league on the last drive with less than a minute to go. The offense essentially left the field winning the game and the defense let THEM down.

You can't look at turnovers alone. Say a defense gives up 40 points, but forces 4 turnovers. Would you call that a superb outing? You've got to look at the whole picture.

GeniusatWork
12-31-2009, 08:46 AM
In the theme of the thread, the 2008 offense wasn't spectacular and neither was the 2009 offense. Te 2008 QB play wasn't spectacular and neither was the 2009 QB play. The 2008 special team play wasn't spectacular and neither was the 2009.

All I know is we have to get better on 3rd down conversion and red zone TD scoring.

Do I wish we had Jay back? No. Jay has 31 games the past 2 years uninjured and has 48 TD's/44 INT.

Orton has 29 games (playing injured in about 6 games) the past 2 yrs and has 38 TD's/21 INT.

Are the extra TD's worth the extra INT's? No sir.

Obviously the offense I want to see score more in 2010, but it wasn't a horrible year

Broncoman13
12-31-2009, 09:38 AM
After hearing about our travesty of an offense repeatedly, I finally decided to just look into it a bit. It's been spoken about with such certainty around here, it seemed worth a look.

In 2008 the Broncos averaged 23.1 points per game.

In 2009 the Broncos have averaged 20.1 points per game.

Difference? One field goal per game.

One FG per game hardly indicates the massive decline some have spoken of.

What about turnovers? Maybe that's part of the massive decline?

2008 Broncos - 30 turnovers (18 INTs)

2009 Broncos - 20 turnoveres (10 INTs)

Nope. That's not it. The 2009 Broncos turned the ball over 10 less times than the 2008 Broncos. (Still one game to play, of course.)

Hmm.... 3 points per game, but considerably fewer turnovers. Where's the massive decline?

I know, it must have been the strong finish in 08? That 08 offense must have finished stronger than this year's, considering the massive decline this year, right?

Last 7 games of 08 - Broncos scored 146 points

Last 7 games of 09 - Broncos scored 152 points


So, a difference of one FG per game... yet, a stronger 2nd half of the season and considerably fewer turnovers. (And I haven't even gotten into red-zone turnovers.)

Wow, I guess that's why when people make claims that sound outrageous, you probably ought to look into them. Or, perhaps they should have looked into them before making the claim?

Either way, it's nice to know the truth.


I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread. But I'm guessing that most of our numbers came from 5 or 6 games. Probably the same in past years as well. Consistency is key and right now we're probably the least consistent team in the AFCW. Kansas City is at least consistently shiatty. You know you're going to get a shiat burger every week. In Denver, soup & salad one week, soup sandwhich the next.

Steve Prefontaine
12-31-2009, 09:40 AM
The same could be said about the 10 turnovers from last year.

How many of those turnovers came at inopportune times and costs us games last season?

Overall, minus the first 3 games last season the scoring was the same and the turnovers were 10 less. It wasn't the offensive implosion that some have made it out to be.

Cool. I was addressing the point that a field goal a game isn't that big of a deal.

TonyR
12-31-2009, 10:16 AM
From what I can tell, we've effectively rearranged deck chairs on a ship that is taking on water. We've improved the defense, and downgraded the offense, and the end result is a team very similar to last year's team...

Are you willing to acknowledge that the defensive improvement is greater than the offensive decline, and that last year's team played, per Sagarin, the 3rd easiest schedule, while this year's team has played the 7th most difficult? When you are you'll come to the obvious conclusion that this year's team is better than last year's team and your takes will be more credible.

Cito Pelon
12-31-2009, 10:17 AM
Well, it's one game too premature for the post-mortem on the 2009 season.

There's still a chance Denver makes the playoffs.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 10:19 AM
Are you willing to acknowledge that the defensive improvement is greater than the offensive decline, and that last year's team played, per Sagarin, the 3rd easiest schedule, while this year's team has played the 7th most difficult? When you are you'll come to the obvious conclusion that this year's team is better than last year's team and your takes will be more credible.

It's not even close when you look at the improvement from 2008 to 2009 in special teams and include that in the equation. 2 out of the 3 areas of the team have each improved more than the 1 other area has declined.

MplsBronco
12-31-2009, 10:22 AM
It's not even close when you look at the improvement from 2008 to 2009 in special teams and include that in the equation. 2 out of the 3 areas of the team have each improved more than the 1 other area has declined.

Not to mention that the effort and competitive nature of this team is much better than last years. The team doesn't give up and when down at the half I have confidence that they won't give up and actually have a chance to come back in games. Even though we've lost those games (Indy, Oak, Philly) I like the fight and professionalism I see.

Popps
12-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Not to mention that the effort and competitive nature of this team is much better than last years. The team doesn't give up and when down at the half I have confidence that they won't give up and actually have a chance to come back in games. Even though we've lost those games (Indy, Oak, Philly) I like the fight and professionalism I see.

Exactly. I shudder to think what the results would have been if we played Philly with last year's squad. A loss is a loss, but at least this team doesn't lay down.

The whole point is to simply debunk the myth that we came from being a prolific offense and turned to poop. No such thing has happened. We had struggles last year, we're having some this year.

However, as a few people have pointed out... the other units and the overall effort are stronger, and this is more of a complete team.


Let's beat K.C. and see what happens.

Dean
12-31-2009, 10:44 AM
For the last ten games, since Baltimore showed the league how to stop this offense, we have averaged 17 points per game. That kind of report card is not refrigerator material.

Popps
12-31-2009, 10:45 AM
For the last ten games, since Baltimore showed the league how to stop this offense, we have averaged 17 points per game. That kind of report card is not refrigerator material.

We averaged less over that same span last season.


So, we clearly need to work on the offense.



Just like last season. No massive decline, just a unit that still needs attention.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 10:49 AM
For the last ten games, since Baltimore showed the league how to stop this offense, we have averaged 17 points per game. That kind of report card is not refrigerator material.

And the defense? They've gone from giving up 9 pts per game pre-Baltimore to 23 pts per game since Baltimore.

That kind of report card is not refrigerator material.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:10 PM
Exactly. I shudder to think what the results would have been if we played Philly with last year's squad. A loss is a loss, but at least this team doesn't lay down.

The whole point is to simply debunk the myth that we came from being a prolific offense and turned to poop. No such thing has happened. We had struggles last year, we're having some this year.

However, as a few people have pointed out... the other units and the overall effort are stronger, and this is more of a complete team.


Let's beat K.C. and see what happens.Despite the futile attempts by Mplsbronco and Beantown Bronco to bail you out of yet another Popps epic blunder, you're still wrong.
You try to pass incredible stupid statements as facts, as if people here haven't watched an NFL game or have been living under a rock

Last year we scored 370 points, 4545 yards and 40 TD's (rush & rec.)
This year so far we've scored 302 points, 3394 yards and 27 TD's (rush & rec.)
Yeah, that's a major drop-off to where we are right now.
This offense this year has stunk. The play calling has been terrible, we've got no running game, and the NFL standings in that categroy (offense) supports that.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:12 PM
We averaged less over that same span last season.


So, we clearly need to work on the offense.



Just like last season. No massive decline, just a unit that still needs attention.Keep trying that you've proven a point. You haven't!

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 12:14 PM
Beantown Bronco's Final Rule of 2009: any time you are on the opposite side of an argument from dragqueen69, you should feel that much more confident in your position.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:26 PM
Beantown Bronco's Final Rule of 2009: any time you are on the opposite side of an argument from dragking69, you should feel that much more confident in your position that you've been proven wrong.Fixed for you to portray a much accurate statement. :strong:

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 12:28 PM
Fixed for you to portray a much accurate statement. :strong:

funny part is, your correction as written doesn't even make sense. If you're going to try to play with the words of someone else's post, make sure it's at least in English.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:32 PM
funny part is, your correction as written doesn't even make sense. If you're going to try to play with the words of someone else's post, make sure it's at least in English.Just as long as you get the point -which I know you did- that's all it matters...

Popps
12-31-2009, 12:35 PM
Just as long as you get the point -which I know you did- that's all it matters...

Yes, we all got the point that you were unable to refute the simple thesis that...

- 3 ppg less
-considerably less turnovers
-better time of possession

Does not constitute a "massive offensive decline."


Sorry.


Anyway, shouldn't you be starting another Hillis thread, or are you done with that since he couldn't pick up 2 inches when we needed it Sunday?

Bronco Yoda
12-31-2009, 12:36 PM
From what I can tell, we've effectively rearranged deck chairs on a ship that is taking on water. We've improved the defense, and downgraded the offense, and the end result is a team very similar to last year's team - the one that lost 8 runningbacks to injury and was forced into a one-dimensional pass happy mode.

So we've effectively made a lateral move from last year to this.

I think most of us see it this way. Who would have thought this last spring.

Which is fine. I mean, I'm not completely cool with it. I still think that it was a mistake not to give Shanahan one more year to work out the kinks as he groomed his new quarterback and brought his new DC online - but whatever. The reset button has been hit, and we are where we are. At the end of the day, I understand that we've got a new coach, and expecting him to take a team from mediocre to above average or better is a big job that might take more than one season. (I can't help it, even when I try to be sincere, my natural cynicism kicks in).

I remember finally relenting to the idea of Shanahan leaving the Broncos. We were all in deep debate over it the week before Shanahan was fired. Some here swore it would never, ever, ever happen while others were screaming that it should have happed long ago.

I remeber vividly that during this time... it was the first time I could really see Shanahan time here done. The final straw had somehow broke in my mindseye over Mikes coaching here. Even for a die hard Mike supporter like me, it had all become to clear.

As good as Mike was as a Offense guru, the rest was never going to fall in line.

Then eerily enough for me anyway, two days later the bombshell dropped about Shanahan. Talk about timing...If not for the discussion here during that time, I'd probably been really upset at the firing. As it turned out, I wasn't even really surprised by it.

My concern is that in McDaniels inexperience, he's biting off more than he can chew and changing too much too fast. I don't understand the point of keeping Dennison around if we're not going to use him. Dennison is probably a top 5 ZBS coaches in the league - if not two. How many games did the O-line switch cost us? Even one is one too many right now.

IMO, it's more than a concern...it's a sad reality. Of all the good things McD has done. And yes, I'm still a supporter of his, he really screwed the pooch on this one. It says to me that he wrote this season of as a rebuild. But IMO you always have to be ready for when lightning strikes. And this year Dawkins really lit a fire under the D. You can't always count on such a thing.

Hillis for that matter too. What's the point of keeping him around if you're not going to find a way to get creative with him? He's a five tool talent on a runningback squad that hasn't been a model of consistency. Pairing Hillis up with Larsen in a power set could have been a great change of pace during the season. Not to mention mixing Hillis and Moreno together, while keeping Moreno and Buckhalter as the feature set. Instead, we saw more and more tired unimaginative screen passes. One thing this season did for me was confirm an understanding for me of why Shanahan shunned the screen pass in his offense.

I just hope that McD gives Hillis a chance next year. I know there's a lot of Hillis doubters here at the mane, but I really do think he could be an big weapon for us used the correct way.

I personally felt that this season, we'd have been moving under year 3 of a 5 year arc towards the Superbowl under the previous regime. Right now, I feel like we're at year 1 at best. That's frustrating. I like some of the things that I see, but I'm very skeptical of some of the others.

Besides getting the D reset...the one thing that I was hoping for from McD was versatility and Imaginative Thinking in regards to our Offense. IMO, he's shown little of this. He's tinkered with what was our strenght and fixed what was not broken resulting in a dominoes affect that has set our Offense back. In doing so I'm lost for any sort of timeline. I guess we'll all just have to wait and see. Hopefully he can do for the O what he did for the D this year.


The fun thing about this team is that Bowlen gives his coaches the power to operate. If nothing else, I'm excited to see the decisions that Josh makes, and watching this thing unfold further. I hope that he's right that abandoning an offensive line system that has produced so much for this franchise is the smart/right thing to do.

I agree. I just hope he doesn't give him too much power. Hopefully Bowlen learned his lesson from the Shanahan years.

.

TonyR
12-31-2009, 12:43 PM
.

You clearly ignored, or failed to comprehend, post 207, among others. How is this possibly a lateral move?

jhns
12-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Really? Still at this?

So, when is someone going to try tackling the obvious?

We won 8 games last year with this teams worst ever defense and a horrible special teams.

We have 8 wins this season with a top defense and a good special teams.

I mean, is this really that complicated to figure out? Last year we won with only offense. How exactly did we not have a big decline. How do we have an improved special teams and a top defense with this "same" offense from last year but only a chance at one more win? How does this thinking even make sense to anyone? You are pretty much saying we are losing from coaching alone... Way to hate on McDaniels.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 12:48 PM
I mean, is this really that complicated to figure out? Last year we won with only offense. How exactly did we not have a big decline. How do we have an improved special teams and a top defense with this "same" offense from last year but only a chance at one more win? How does this thinking even make sense to anyone? You are pretty much saying we are losing from coaching alone... Way to hate on McDaniels.

You fail to comprehend the concept of variables, obviously. You only account for 3 variables (offense, defense and special teams) when a lot more goes into it (strength of schedule, margin of victories, injuries, etc).

Popps
12-31-2009, 12:48 PM
Just let me know when you have that proof, jhns. We'll all be here waiting.

Popps
12-31-2009, 12:50 PM
You fail to comprehend the concept of variables, obviously. You only account for 3 variables (offense, defense and special teams) when a lot more goes into it (strength of schedule, margin of victories, injuries, etc).

We just put up 27 on arguably the best team in the NFC right now as they head into the playoffs. We could have won the game in the last two minutes.

Think last year's team could have done that in week 15?

(Hint: Check out our result against a playoff quality team against SD in week 16.)


But, we've outscored last year's team in the 2nd half of the season against better competition. So, this isn't really surprising.

strafen
12-31-2009, 12:52 PM
Yes, we all got the point that you were unable to refute the simple thesis that...

- 3 ppg less
-considerably less turnovers
-better time of possession

Does not constitute a "massive offensive decline."


Sorry.


Anyway, shouldn't you be starting another Hillis thread, or are you done with that since he couldn't pick up 2 inches when we needed it Sunday?You've been proven wrong.
As jhns beautifully pointed out, you don't get a superb defense and special team this year, and still manage to have the same record as last year -albeit one game better perhaps-
This offense we have this year is not a prolific offense. This offense is average at best, and when you compare it to last year, is definitely a major drop-off.
Remember, all we needed this year was a defense. Remember that?
Do we still need a defense, or do we now need an offense?
Thought so, pal!

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 12:57 PM
You've been proven wrong.

no he hasn't


As jhns beautifully pointed out, you don't get a superb defense and special team this year, and still manage to have the same record as last year -albeit one game better perhaps-

Why not?


This offense we have this year is not a prolific offense.

For the 1,000th time, nobody is saying it is.


and when you compare it to last year, is definitely a major drop-off.

nope

azbroncfan
12-31-2009, 01:04 PM
Just let me know when you have that proof, jhns. We'll all be here waiting.

He has been saying that forever. No proof yet other than adjusting Denver's stats but not doing it for everyone else.

TonyR
12-31-2009, 01:09 PM
We won 8 games last year with this teams worst ever defense and a horrible special teams.


Against the 3rd easiest schedule in the league per Sagarin.



We have 8 wins this season with a top defense and a good special teams.


Against the 7th most difficult schedule in the league per Sagarin.


Seriously, how many times are you people going to ignore the SOS as if it's not a factor?

strafen
12-31-2009, 01:09 PM
no he hasn't



Why not?



For the 1,000th time, nobody is saying it is.



nopeIf you're going to refute my posts, or anybody's posts for that matter, at least elaborate a little bit as to why.
Nope, no, and why not, are not answers that establish any credibility to your argument.
Stop defending popps.
Make your point based on what YOU believe and agree or disagree with, not focusing on defending popps

Bronco Yoda
12-31-2009, 01:10 PM
You clearly ignored, or failed to comprehend, post 207, among others. How is this possibly a lateral move?

I clearly ignore noobs :~ohyah!:

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:19 PM
If you're going to refute my posts, or anybody's posts for that matter, at least elaborate a little bit as to why.
Nope, no, and why not, are not answers that establish any credibility to your argument.
Stop defending popps.
Make your point based on what YOU believe and agree or disagree with, not focusing on defending popps

I respond with the same effort that was put into the things I'm responding to. And any time I respond with more than a few words, it either gets ignored (like you just did with my direct question in the post you quoted) or just confuses you, rasta and jhns.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:21 PM
Against the 3rd easiest schedule in the league per Sagarin.

Against the 7th most difficult schedule in the league per Sagarin.

Seriously, how many times are you people going to ignore the SOS as if it's not a factor?

Do you have a link to this strength of schedule you keep talking about? I hope you realize that this also becomes a giant circle. If it uses records, what was the strength of schedule for the teams we played? Could it be that they had it easier and that is why they have better records? I highly doubt you have looked into even near what it would take to figure out the real strength of schedule and I highly doubt Sagarin did. That is the NFL way. I would still like to see his article though if there is one.

Anyways, that still doesn't explain it. If a team can win games with offense alone and you add the other two phases, strength of schedule should not stop them from winning a lot more games.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:24 PM
here we go again

jhns, you had me do this awhile back with the team defense rankings. I did it. Then you ran and never acknowledged it. Anyone with half a brain can see that the teams they've faced this year have been tougher than the teams they faced last year without even getting into the hard numbers. It's not even close.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:25 PM
I respond with the same effort that was put into the things I'm responding to. And any time I respond with more than a few words, it either gets ignored (like you just did with my direct question in the post you quoted) or just confuses you, rasta and jhns.

Uh oh, the kids are showing back up. When does your winter break end so we don't have you around all day?

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:27 PM
Just let me know when you have that proof, jhns. We'll all be here waiting.

What proof?

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:27 PM
Uh oh, the kids are showing back up. When does your winter break end so we don't have you around all day?

As soon as we find one other poster here who doesn't view you as a waste of space.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:31 PM
You fail to comprehend the concept of variables, obviously. You only account for 3 variables (offense, defense and special teams) when a lot more goes into it (strength of schedule, margin of victories, injuries, etc).

OK, fine. We had way more injuries last year. You can try showing the strength of schedule if you want. Good luck. Also, strength of schedule doesn't go off of defensive rankings. I'm just pointing that out because that is what your last post looks like you are saying.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:33 PM
OK, fine. We had way more injuries last year. You can try showing the strength of schedule if you want. Good luck. Also, strength of schedule doesn't go off of defensive rankings. I'm just pointing that out because that is what your last post looks like you are saying.

I know it's tough for you to keep up with 2 different discussions, so I'll try to slow it down for you.

One poster here is referring to the overall Sagarin strength of schedule rankings which he pulled which encompass the records of the teams.

I, in the past, pulled the offensive and defensive rankings for the various Broncos opponents from this year and last year from nfl.com.

Two different things.

Both, however, point to the fact that we faced tougher teams overall and tougher defenses in 2009 as compared to 2008.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:33 PM
here we go again

jhns, you had me do this awhile back with the team defense rankings. I did it. Then you ran and never acknowledged it. Anyone with half a brain can see that the teams they've faced this year have been tougher than the teams they faced last year without even getting into the hard numbers. It's not even close.

Show me a link to this... The only thing I remeber getting broke down is the defensive rankings. These are not used in the strength of schedule.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:36 PM
As soon as we find one other poster here who doesn't view you as a waste of space.

Do you really want to get into a war of kiddy insults? You will just have to put me on ignore like all the other children. Just ask Moose, Tailgate, and all the other people that act like this is elementary school.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:38 PM
Show me a link to this... The only thing I remeber getting broke down is the defensive rankings. These are not used in the strength of schedule.

Whoever referenced the sagarin rankings can take care of that. I'm not sure where it is.

The only thing I remeber getting broke down is the defensive rankings. These are not used in the strength of schedule.

No sh*t. I just said this.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:41 PM
Whoever referenced the sagarin rankings can take care of that. I'm not sure where it is.



No sh*t. I just said this.

So you really are trying to say defensive rankings show the strength of schedule? Wow, and you are trying to insult my intelligence in other posts? LOL... Thanks for the laugh.

Beantown Bronco
12-31-2009, 01:42 PM
So you really are trying to say defensive rankings show the strength of schedule? Wow, and you are trying to insult my intelligence in other posts? LOL... Thanks for the laugh.

?

I clearly just said they were two totally different things.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:49 PM
He has been saying that forever. No proof yet other than adjusting Denver's stats but not doing it for everyone else.

Wait, what? You may have to let me in on what stats I adjusted that I didn't adjust for others.

Popps
12-31-2009, 01:50 PM
You've been proven wrong.
As jhns beautifully pointed out, you don't get a superb defense and special team this year, and still manage to have the same record as last year!

Wow, that's really interesting. It really is.

However, it's not the question at hand.

Thanks for playing, and please feel free to jump in when you've got real data to add to the conversation, not fantasy-football dreamland stuff where we combine last year's offense with this year's special teams and John Elway comes out of retirement.


3 ppg. (maybe less by Sunday)

Considerably less turnovers this year.


The two most important things for an offense?

-points

-taking care of the ball


Result: No "massive decline."


Thanks for playing, kid. Now run along.

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:53 PM
?

I clearly just said they were two totally different things.

Well then you got me. What exactly was your "here we go again, I did this a week ago for jhns" post about? I do not see anything that says anything close to what you were going on about. Seriously, you are trying to insult others and this is what you come with?

jhns
12-31-2009, 01:56 PM
Wow, that's really interesting. It really is.

However, it's not the question at hand.

Thanks for playing, and please feel free to jump in when you've got real data to add to the conversation, not fantasy-football dreamland stuff where we combine last year's offense with this year's special teams and John Elway comes out of retirement.


3 ppg. (maybe less by Sunday)

Considerably less turnovers this year.


The two most important things for an offense?

-points

-taking care of the ball


Result: No "massive decline."


Thanks for playing, kid. Now run along.

So you are saying McDaniels is a horrible coach that has an above average offense, defense, and special teams but still can't win?

All this time I thought you liked him.