PDA

View Full Version : 08 and 09 comparisons


TheReverend
01-03-2010, 09:49 PM
2008

Offense:
370 points scored
48% on 3rd down (2nd in NFL)
77 penalties for 739 yards
4.8 ypc
18 INTs , 12 fumbles lost

Defense:
448 points allowed
44% on 3rd down stops
6 INTs , 7 FR

------------------
2009

Offense:
326 points scored
36% on 3rd down
93 penalties for 800 yards
4.2 ypc
13 INTs , 10 fumbles lost

Defense:
324 points allowed
37% on 3rd down stops
17 INTs , 13 FR

--------------------------

Left out stats like total yardage because many here cling to yards don't matter (and completely neglect to consider the length of the field has more to do with scoring than anything else, but that's besides the point). Some interesting things to see here:

Offense was in tact when McD, an offensive genius, arrived. On top of that, we have the maturation of many key young players, a blue chip rusher via the draft, and many injured players returning to the roster. End result:

-A less disciplined team committing an extra offensive penalty per game
-A team that converted 12% less on 3rd down. (For reference, 12% is a MASSIVE number... separating the first place team from the 18th)
- A weaker rushing attack despite 7 RBs on IR in 2008, and our #12 pick spent on a blue chip rusher
- A MUCH weaker scoring team, especially when you consider SEVENTEEN MORE opportunities to score on short fields due to higher defensive turnover rates (30 as opposed to 13)

These are glaring statistical issues from a "record setting coach" that definitely key something is amiss at the top.

tsiguy96
01-03-2010, 09:50 PM
so you point out everything he did to the offense, not gonna talk about what he did to the defense though?

Killericon
01-03-2010, 09:50 PM
Losing 34 points on offence while allowing 114 less points on defence is what I call progress.

SureShot
01-03-2010, 09:52 PM
This is how you build a winner

I like the fight in this team

This years team was more succesful

kmartin575
01-03-2010, 09:56 PM
Perhaps the first 6 weeks of the season skewed the results a little though

Killericon
01-03-2010, 09:59 PM
Perhaps the first 6 weeks of the season skewed the results a little though

What the hell is with people tonight? Did the first six weeks not count? Was the preseason extended by 6 games? They didn't skew the results, they ARE the results(partially, but you get the idea).

My god. If you're gonna be unhappy with 8-8, be unhappy with 8-8, but don't pretend we went 2-8, because we didn't.

SureShot
01-03-2010, 10:00 PM
What the hell is with people tonight? Did the first six weeks not count? Was the preseason extended by 6 games? They didn't skew the results, they ARE the results(partially, but you get the idea).

My god. If you're gonna be unhappy with 8-8, be unhappy with 8-8, but don't pretend we went 2-8, because we didn't.

No we actually went 2-8 in the last 10 games. I promise.

TheReverend
01-03-2010, 10:03 PM
so you point out everything he did to the offense, not gonna talk about what he did to the defense though?

No, this is to talk about our offensive minded coach. If you'd like I'll dig up relevant defensive statistics tomorrow. Fantastic turn around on D now matter how you slice it from my pov though.

Losing 34 points on offence while allowing 114 less points on defence is what I call progress.

That's fine but what of our key contributors? Who will be around?

Our entire secondary will be well into their 30s with only McBath looking like a viable option. Davis isn't getting any younger. Vonnie Holliday isn't either. That leaves Fields, DJ, and Elvis, longterm... if Elvis is resigned and DJ is kept.

Anyways, defense can get addressed tomorrow. Offensively, we regressed in a MASSIVE way. 17 turnovers (turnover is worth on average a little below 3 pts). That's another 50 points for the 2008 offense (not even mentioning the extra 7% of defensive stops).

The 2008 offense with this defense projects to be roughly 30% more productive in SCORING alone.

Why the regression under such a record setting innovator of never-ending intermediate routes?

TheChamp24
01-03-2010, 10:39 PM
After game 6, this is our stats:
Offense:
193 total points scored
104 rushing yards a game for 4.1 ypc
33% 3rd down conversion rate
61 penalties for 537 yards
12 interceptions
6 fumbles lost

Defense:
258 points allowed
158 rushing yards per game allowed for 5.0 ypc
43% 3rd down conversion rate
11 interceptions
7 fumbles recovered

To add:
Oakland, Kansas City, Washington, Pittsburgh and San Diego all have rushing offenses ranked in the bottom 10 of the league. Each one was able to run for over 150 yards with a ypc over 4.4.
A 33% 3rd down conversion rate ranks 6th last in the NFL, while a 43% conversion rate ranks 10th best.
We faced 3 defenses in the top 10 in rush defense, however also faced 6 teams that were in the bottom 12 of the league, including 2 against the 2nd worst defense against the run in the Chiefs.

I think the 6-0 start, we were able to mask some faults that didn't show up til later. I mean, the past 10 games stats show a team that is borderline mediocre.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-03-2010, 10:52 PM
Perhaps the first 6 weeks of the season skewed the results a little though

The first 3 games skews the results of the 08 offense A LOT. Seriously, take a look at the stats after you remove the first three games.

Popps
01-03-2010, 10:59 PM
Guess what guys...

2008 is over. It sucked.


Mike Shanahan is gone.

Jay Culter is gone.






They're not coming back.

Jason in LA
01-03-2010, 11:21 PM
Both teams sucked. Lost to teams that they shouldn't have. Got blown out a few times. Missed the playoffs. As average as it gets. If the two teams played it would probably be a tie. The Broncos pretty much went sideways from one year to the next.

tsiguy96
01-03-2010, 11:25 PM
The first 3 games skews the results of the 08 offense A LOT. Seriously, take a look at the stats after you remove the first three games.

i tried telling people that for a long time, no one cares. they scored 1/3 of the points for the SEASON in the first 3 games. but ignore thaose little details everyone and continue bashing mcd for destroying this offense...

Taco John
01-03-2010, 11:28 PM
The 2008 team would have made some noise if they could have kept a legit runner healthy. I can't imagine what this team would have looked like if it had the problems along the way that the 2008 team had.

MagicHef
01-03-2010, 11:35 PM
The 2008 team would have made some noise if they could have kept a legit runner healthy. I can't imagine what this team would have looked like if it had the problems along the way that the 2008 team had.

IMO, 2 OL injuries are worse than 7 RB injuries.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 03:59 AM
OLine injuries + significantly tougher defenses faced (over 3 pts per game difference here alone) could easily account for the drop in offensive production.

Northman
01-04-2010, 04:06 AM
Yea, the offensive stats from 08' are pretty. Too bad Shanny neglected the defense for so long that it cost him his job utlimately. You will have to pardon me if i give the new guy more than one year to prove himself.

WolfpackGuy
01-04-2010, 04:13 AM
End of 2008:
Not worried about offense.
Defense and ST could only go up.

End of 2009:
Offense is a mess.
Defense and ST will only get better but not enough to overcome the offense on most occasions.

Bob's your Information Minister
01-04-2010, 04:14 AM
Forget the stats. You lost to the Chiefs at home.

FAIL

Northman
01-04-2010, 04:23 AM
Forget the stats. You lost to the Chiefs at home.

FAIL

True dat.

Wes Mantooth
01-04-2010, 05:09 AM
End of 2008:
Not worried about offense.
Defense and ST could only go up.

End of 2009:
Offense is a mess.
Defense and ST will only get better but not enough to overcome the offense on most occasions.

Offense was a mess in 2008.

ColoradoDarin
01-04-2010, 05:55 AM
End of 2008:
Offense sucked after game 3.
Defense and ST could only go up.

End of 2009:
Offense is still a mess.
Defense and ST much improved

Fixed it for you.

vancejohnson82
01-04-2010, 06:47 AM
Forget the stats. You lost to the Chiefs at home.

FAIL

well, that makes your season a fail too....i dont get all the glee coming from teh Chiefs fan base....while we are sitting here ripping this team apart, take a look at that franchise and imagine what being terrible every year is like....true, they came in and beat up on us...but we did the same to them and they were smoked on a few occasions over the past few years

that team is pathetic...hence, why they frequent this board

jhns
01-04-2010, 07:01 AM
i tried telling people that for a long time, no one cares. they scored 1/3 of the points for the SEASON in the first 3 games. but ignore thaose little details everyone and continue bashing mcd for destroying this offense...

The reason your dumb theories don't work is you guys would cry for days if someone broke down this years team and took out their 3 best weeks. Why not show what this team did with their best games taken out? What exactly does that show? Why do people here not use their brains at all? All good questions.

WolfpackGuy
01-04-2010, 07:04 AM
The reason your dumb theories don't work is you guys would cry for days if someone broke down this years team and took out their 3 best weeks. Why not show what this team did with their best games taken out? What exactly does that show? Why do people here not use their brains at all? All good questions.

That would make yesterday's loss look like a moral victory.

gyldenlove
01-04-2010, 07:17 AM
Guess what guys...

2008 is over. It sucked.


Mike Shanahan is gone.

Jay Culter is gone.






They're not coming back.

But 2009 is over as well and it sucked, but Mcdaniels isn't gone and Orton isn't gone. So it looks a LOT like 2010 will suck as well.

Lolad
01-04-2010, 07:21 AM
Losing 34 points on offence while allowing 114 less points on defence is what I call progress.

it was a coaches decision

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 07:31 AM
But 2009 is over as well and it sucked, but Mcdaniels isn't gone and Orton isn't gone. So it looks a LOT like 2010 will suck as well.

Alright, Come on. Its the day after the season ended and you are smart enough to not go there.

There was a ton of progress this year and there was a ton of stuff that still needs to be addressed. You can only change so much in one year effectively.

McDaniels has never been the problem. It the fricken roster that continues to blow games down the stretch when its the players that make the difference. That and immature selfish superstars who act so bad the veterans go to the coach and ask him to do something about it. I will remind people that TO has never led anyone to the promised land of a SB victory and neither has Randy Moss for that mattter.

What pains me the most is the regression of a very successful OL a year ago. They have 3 buliding blocks in Kuper, Harris, and Clady. They need 2 more solid OL and some real depth.

The DL is exactly what I said it was for the last 5 years. Complete and utter trash. The two home losses to the Raiders and Chiefs just continue to emphasize that fact. They need a Wilfork or Seymour to shore up a pathetic effort only driven DL. Effort and scheme can cover up holes for awhile like they did in the running game early in the year. However, they lost their pass rush and their gap integrity down the stretch.

I just hope they get the FA DL like they did the FA secondary they brought to DEN. All those moves made this team a lot better. Heck, even the FA LB's made this team better. Now, they need to get the DL to go with it.

Merlin
01-04-2010, 07:57 AM
Mediator,
For some reason, everything Patriot always seems to give you a woodie. When you would be busy louding how successful their system was at picking players you notably ignored how mediocre their drafts became over the past few yrs. You have had a woodie over McD, despite his never have proving himself. His performance in talent evaluation has been horrendous, his handling of players has been mediocre and clearly hampered by his own gigantic ego, and his one area of expertise was an utter failure this yr. The one area the team did not regress was the area he least influenced, the D. There is absolutely no reason to assume McD is in any way able to improve the team, and there is every reason to assume he is in the process of truly bathing it in mediocrity (and we thought the past 3 yrs had elements of mediocrity, little did we know how much worse it could get). That being said, I would like him to coach one more yr, because I think he is smart, and I truly hope his unearned ego does not destroy his ability to HC. But I have very little reason to assume this will get better, in fact it is far easier to argue it is about to get worse.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 08:02 AM
This:

There is absolutely no reason to assume McD is in any way able to improve the team, and there is every reason to assume he is in the process of truly bathing it in mediocrity.

Followed up with this:

That being said, I would like him to coach one more yr

= :kiddingme

Jason in LA
01-04-2010, 08:10 AM
But 2009 is over as well and it sucked, but Mcdaniels isn't gone and Orton isn't gone. So it looks a LOT like 2010 will suck as well.

Pretty much. McD needs to get rid of Orton ASAP or he won't be around for very much longer. If next year is like this year, McD might be in trouble.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 08:17 AM
Alright, Come on. Its the day after the season ended and you are smart enough to not go there.

There was a ton of progress this year and there was a ton of stuff that still needs to be addressed. You can only change so much in one year effectively.

McDaniels has never been the problem. It the fricken roster that continues to blow games down the stretch when its the players that make the difference. That and immature selfish superstars who act so bad the veterans go to the coach and ask him to do something about it. I will remind people that TO has never led anyone to the promised land of a SB victory and neither has Randy Moss for that mattter.

What pains me the most is the regression of a very successful OL a year ago. They have 3 buliding blocks in Kuper, Harris, and Clady. They need 2 more solid OL and some real depth.

The DL is exactly what I said it was for the last 5 years. Complete and utter trash. The two home losses to the Raiders and Chiefs just continue to emphasize that fact. They need a Wilfork or Seymour to shore up a pathetic effort only driven DL. Effort and scheme can cover up holes for awhile like they did in the running game early in the year. However, they lost their pass rush and their gap integrity down the stretch.

I just hope they get the FA DL like they did the FA secondary they brought to DEN. All those moves made this team a lot better. Heck, even the FA LB's made this team better. Now, they need to get the DL to go with it.

You ever get my really late e-mail reply?

WolfpackGuy
01-04-2010, 08:18 AM
Pretty much. McD needs to get rid of Orton ASAP or he won't be around for very much longer. If next year is like this year, McD might be in trouble.

His ego and the few on this board who think Orton walks on water won't allow it.

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 08:43 AM
You ever get my really late e-mail reply?

NO, I'll Check it Soone enough.

TonyR
01-04-2010, 09:20 AM
There is absolutely no reason to assume McD is in any way able to improve the team, and there is every reason to assume he is in the process of truly bathing it in mediocrity (and we thought the past 3 yrs had elements of mediocrity, little did we know how much worse it could get).

Can you explain the "logic" here? No reason to assume he can't improve the team, every reason to assume he can't? Do you see what you did there? Particularly interesting since he DID improve the team!

TonyR
01-04-2010, 09:22 AM
McDaniels has never been the problem.

You mean you're not going to jump on the "FIRE MCDANIELS" bandwagon with the rest of the village idiots?

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 09:25 AM
Mediator,
For some reason, everything Patriot always seems to give you a woodie. When you would be busy louding how successful their system was at picking players you notably ignored how mediocre their drafts became over the past few yrs. You have had a woodie over McD, despite his never have proving himself. His performance in talent evaluation has been horrendous, his handling of players has been mediocre and clearly hampered by his own gigantic ego, and his one area of expertise was an utter failure this yr. The one area the team did not regress was the area he least influenced, the D. There is absolutely no reason to assume McD is in any way able to improve the team, and there is every reason to assume he is in the process of truly bathing it in mediocrity (and we thought the past 3 yrs had elements of mediocrity, little did we know how much worse it could get). That being said, I would like him to coach one more yr, because I think he is smart, and I truly hope his unearned ego does not destroy his ability to HC. But I have very little reason to assume this will get better, in fact it is far easier to argue it is about to get worse.

I could say the exact same thing about you Merlin. You seem to despise everything Patriots so much that you have your main arguments with me over them ;D

However, I want to address what you posted:

1. I do not have a woodie for McDaniels, but I respect him and see both sides of the coin. This is the same thing with the Patriots. I really DO NOT LIKE the Patriots. However, I see the way they have built a 10 year dominant franchise and I admire their efforts and process, while still despising them overall. I really do not like Belichick the person, but as the HC and team builder he is very good. Its the same kind of respect you have to have for Ozzie Newsome and Bill Polian. They are simply the best of the best in Talent acquisition.

2. McDaniels is smart and he comes from a long line of successful coaching. Yet, he does make mistakes like the rest of us. He did not completely change this team in one year like we all wished he could. He made mistakes, he burned more than a few bridges, and has managed to divide the fan base before he even showed up by being the new guy after replacing the future HOF superbowl winning coach. However, what he did not do is stand up and say this team is 1-2 players away from a SB title and then go .500 for 3 years. I can accept that.

3. McDaniels Style is not for everyone, and again I can get that. I just happen to agree and like his style, philosophy, and effort.

4. To say that there is no way to assume he will improve this team is extremely one sided. It fails to even look for the other side, which you accuse me of doing while in fact you are doing ;D That's priceless coming from you.

5. The Defense did regress horribly down the stretch for the fourth straight year BTW, based mainly on the fact the DL still is one of the worst in the NFL. DEN gave up an average of 30.5 pts a game down the stretch of the final four games. That is on par with last years collossal failure. They gave up 29.9 pts a game in all eight losses. So, while there are a bunch of people who would love to blame the offense for regressing, which it has slightly, the defense was on par with last years miserable unit in all eight losses and even worse the final four games of the season. Now, the eight games they won were completely different and they should get major kudos for those efforts. However, until they can be much more consistent and much more effective down the stretch with the playoffs on the line, they will just be average.

6. This is my stance on the whole issue. DEN hired the best up and coming young coach last year. He had mixed succcess in his first year, but even excellent coaching could not stop the inevitable fall down the stretch when DEN's talent gets exposed. This team needs to improve in a few key areas to reach the playoffs next year. However, they probably need 2 more years to be a legit playoff contender every year with a chance at beating the Chargers, Steelers, Colts, Ravens, and/or Pats in the Playoffs to make a SB run.

This is a flawed team, just like every team in the NFL. They fixed a few of those flaws last year in the transition, and created a few as well. However, there is usually a big leap in performance the second year in a system. And, I can see how they could alleviate some problems, while minimizing any further additional problems. I can also see them staying the same mediocrity or even going the other way and being poor. I just see those last 2 options being a much less probable way of looking at it than others around here.

Popps
01-04-2010, 09:46 AM
But 2009 is over as well and it sucked, but Mcdaniels isn't gone and Orton isn't gone. So it looks a LOT like 2010 will suck as well.

Yep.

You'd better take a year off of posting until we get it straightened out.

Popps
01-04-2010, 09:53 AM
This is a flawed team, just like every team in the NFL. They fixed a few of those flaws last year in the transition, and created a few as well. However, there is usually a big leap in performance the second year in a system. And, I can see how they could alleviate some problems, while minimizing any further additional problems. I can also see them staying the same mediocrity or even going the other way and being poor. I just see those last 2 options being a much less probable way of looking at it than others around here.

Great post all around, Med.

I agree, and as I said in my other thread... I think we just need more talent. It didn't all happen in one off-season. (Surprise!)

People need a single scapegoat to feel better, I guess. But, it's way to early to make definitive judgments about this staff.

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 10:13 AM
No, this is to talk about our offensive minded coach. If you'd like I'll dig up relevant defensive statistics tomorrow. Fantastic turn around on D now matter how you slice it from my pov though.



That's fine but what of our key contributors? Who will be around?

Our entire secondary will be well into their 30s with only McBath looking like a viable option. Davis isn't getting any younger. Vonnie Holliday isn't either. That leaves Fields, DJ, and Elvis, longterm... if Elvis is resigned and DJ is kept.

Anyways, defense can get addressed tomorrow. Offensively, we regressed in a MASSIVE way. 17 turnovers (turnover is worth on average a little below 3 pts). That's another 50 points for the 2008 offense (not even mentioning the extra 7% of defensive stops).

The 2008 offense with this defense projects to be roughly 30% more productive in SCORING alone.

Why the regression under such a record setting innovator of never-ending intermediate routes?

Gotta hope the 2010 O does better. Not a great O year in 2009.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2009.htm

The overall record would have been better in 2009 if the D hadn't been getting gashed with long scoring drives and massive amounts of rushing yards and 3d down conversions in the final 10 games.

I can't blame people for being bitter about the O regressing, it clearly has.

But, the O was in a new system so that has to be taken into consideration.

TheChamp24
01-04-2010, 10:21 AM
I think some people do need to grip reality and realize that this team has a lot of holes, and we won't be serious contenders for a little bit.
The interior OL needs upgrade, the DL like Med says needs a massive upgrade, the LB's need to be upgraded, we need just better talent at some positions.

orangemonkey
01-04-2010, 10:42 AM
Gotta hope the 2010 O does better. Not a great O year in 2009.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2009.htm

The overall record would have been better in 2009 if the D hadn't been getting gashed with long scoring drives and massive amounts of rushing yards and 3d down conversions in the final 10 games.

I can't blame people for being bitter about the O regressing, it clearly has.

But, the O was in a new system so that has to be taken into consideration.

Jay Cutler's Chicago Bear's outrank us by 1 point. Great.

GoBroncos DownUnder
01-04-2010, 11:11 AM
I MUCH preferred the 09 team to the 08 team, was a lot more fun to watch our team now that we have a D that produces Sacks, forces fumbles and makes interceptions! ;)

TailgateNut
01-04-2010, 11:14 AM
I MUCH preferred the 09 team to the 08 team, was a lot more fun to watch our team now that we have a D that produces Sacks, forces fumbles and makes interceptions! ;)

Tackling sucked balls last night ('cept for that one BODYSLAM). Just saying!

GoBroncos DownUnder
01-04-2010, 11:33 AM
Tackling sucked balls last night ('cept for that one BODYSLAM). Just saying!
in the NFL a RB has two options once he is effectively tackled/stopped, either you go DOWN or you get SUPLEXED! Simple enough? ???
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography//502/medium/suplex.jpg

Note: I NEVER said the tackling was any better! ;)

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 11:35 AM
Tackling sucked balls last night ('cept for that one BODYSLAM). Just saying!

Hah! That was sweet. Unless the whistle had blown I don't see how that warrants a 15-yarder.

TailgateNut
01-04-2010, 11:38 AM
Hah! That was sweet. Unless the whistle had blown I don't see how that warrants a 15-yarder.

The refs were on crack last night. At least from my vantage point 20 rows from the field. I haven't watched the tivo'ed version yet.

DrFate
01-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Particularly interesting since he DID improve the team!

Doesn't 8 wins equal 8 wins?

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 11:50 AM
The rushing yards and subsequent 3d down conversions down the stretch in 2009 were a killer to overall team record in 2009. The runs against over 20 yds was a killer to the overall team record.

The O wasn't able to compensate, so that was obviously a problem also. And the ST's weren't much of a factor, although Bruton/Barrett mades some nice downs on punts inside the 5.

Denver was +7 in TO ratio the first 6 games of 2009, even in TO ratio the last 10 games of 2009.

I'm not pleased at all with the 2-8, but Denver also played 4 of the current playoff teams in that stretch. I'll say again I'm not pleased with the 2-8, but I'm not packing it up like some will. It's interesting that the same posters that were predicting total, unmitigated disaster in 2009 are predicting total, unmitigated disaster for 2010.

ColoradoDarin
01-04-2010, 12:01 PM
Doesn't 8 wins equal 8 wins?

It does and it doesn't. 8 wins is 8 wins

Then again, 8 wins against an easy schedule or 8 wins against a tough schedule. So Maybe it was more like 7.6 wins versus 8.4 wins, both rounded ROFL!

Popps
01-04-2010, 12:12 PM
Doesn't 8 wins equal 8 wins?

See "Broncos Historical Fun Facts" thread.


Shanahan and Wade Phillips had almost identical records and stats.


History shows us that Shanahan's 8-8 was the beginning of something, rather than stagnation and lack of direction.

So, while standings-wise, you're correct. Anyone who's watched football long enough knows that there can be two completely different types of .500 seasons.

It just boils down to which kind you think we had.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Gotta hope the 2010 O does better. Not a great O year in 2009.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2009.htm

The overall record would have been better in 2009 if the D hadn't been getting gashed with long scoring drives and massive amounts of rushing yards and 3d down conversions in the final 10 games.

I can't blame people for being bitter about the O regressing, it clearly has.

But, the O was in a new system so that has to be taken into consideration.

Good post, Cito.

I'm not sure how much I'd put on the new system and learning process. The ZBS is the complicated part for blocking, and that was down pat, it was the heads up in-line blocking that failed miserably.

As for the skill positions players, we had by my count 6 rushing plays, only with a few variations, so I don't think that counts.

As for passing plays, how long does it take to master the bubble screen and more slants than you count in a day?

TonyR
01-04-2010, 12:21 PM
Doesn't 8 wins equal 8 wins?

You're smarter than that, or at least should be. Considerably more difficult schedule this year (one of the easiest in the league last year, a borderline top 10 most difficult this year) and an 80 point improvement on the differential.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 12:34 PM
You're smarter than that, or at least should be. Considerably more difficult schedule this year (one of the easiest in the league last year, a borderline top 10 most difficult this year) and an 80 point improvement on the differential.

This "considerably more difficult schedule" didn't stop the rest of the AFCW from winning more games...

Drek
01-04-2010, 12:38 PM
08 to 09 in a nutshell:

Interior OL still gets pushed around by more powerful DLs.
DL is still weak, though was slightly improved.
09 had a harder schedule than 08.
09 had some of the me first ass clowns on the team decide this was the year to throw a hissy fit, assuming a new young HC could get pushed around.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 12:38 PM
You're smarter than that, or at least should be. Considerably more difficult schedule this year (one of the easiest in the league last year, a borderline top 10 most difficult this year) and an 80 point improvement on the differential.

Quick little research to add to that point.

Outside of the division opponents had a 87-73 record in 2008

Outside of the division opponents had a 91-69 record in 2009

Is that really considerably more difficult...? Ha!

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 12:40 PM
This "considerably more difficult schedule" didn't stop the rest of the AFCW from winning more games...

To be fair, the Chargers got Miami and Tenn instead of Indy and NE. And they got to face Pittsburgh without Polamalu.

The other two also had more favorable nondivision games and had nowhere to go but up after last year.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 12:51 PM
To be fair, the Chargers got Miami and Tenn instead of Indy and NE. And they got to face Pittsburgh without Polamalu.

The other two also had more favorable nondivision games and had nowhere to go but up after last year.

The other two also had more favorable nondivision games the year before...?

Also, what does facing Pittsburgh without Polamalu mean to their improvement when they got smacked by Pittsburgh 38-28? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100412/2009/REG4/chargers@steelers#tab:analyze

Bean... you're better than this.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 01:01 PM
The other two also had more favorable nondivision games the year before...?

Also, what does facing Pittsburgh without Polamalu mean to their improvement when they got smacked by Pittsburgh 38-28? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100412/2009/REG4/chargers@steelers#tab:analyze

Bean... you're better than this.

Just pointing out that it literally couldn't have fallen any worse than it did for Denver timing and opponent-wise. The ONLY two games that were different in the entire 16 game schedule and they get the two division leaders who were by far better than anyone else in those divisions, they faced 3 or 4 teams coming off a bye, they faced Pittsburgh with Polamalu, they faced Baltimore in Baltimore which is a death sentence for them, they faced Philly when they were clearly in the middle of their best ball of the season, and they faced KC after they finally realized that they had a real RB on their roster after all.

snowspot66
01-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Quick little research to add to that point.

Outside of the division opponents had a 87-73 record in 2008

Outside of the division opponents had a 91-69 record in 2009

Is that really considerably more difficult...? Ha!

Don't be dense. Anybody can look at the schedules side by side and it's no question as to which schedule is significantly harder.

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 01:09 PM
2008

Offense:
370 points scored
48% on 3rd down (2nd in NFL)
77 penalties for 739 yards
4.8 ypc
18 INTs , 12 fumbles lost

This is an instance where stats lie. They scored 114 in their first 3 games. After that, 19.7 pts per game. And they only averaged 20.3 pts per game during a critical 6 game stretch in which they were trying to make the playoffs. Last year's offense was not near as great as the stats suggest after Week 3.

And your point about the running game? Well this year's OL played much the 2nd half of the season with out Ryan Harris and with inconsistency at LG. Last year's team stayed intact all year long at both positions. The injury argument cuts both ways.

The offense this year was not sexy. In fact, it was down right ugly. But it was nearly as effective as last years. I buy the argument about third down. Much of that has to do with our inability to convert 3rd and short.

Blart
01-04-2010, 01:15 PM
The '98 team was better

55CrushEm
01-04-2010, 01:19 PM
Yea, the offensive stats from 08' are pretty. Too bad Shanny neglected the defense for so long that it cost him his job utlimately. You will have to pardon me if i give the new guy more than one year to prove himself.

This. And it's exactly what I can't figure out about the McD haters......why they excused the past several years of mediocrity under an established coach and system. But when a new guy comes in and accomplishes the same with new systems and a MUCH tougher schedule....then this new guy sucks.

Ok.

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 01:31 PM
Good post, Cito.

I'm not sure how much I'd put on the new system and learning process. The ZBS is the complicated part for blocking, and that was down pat, it was the heads up in-line blocking that failed miserably.

As for the skill positions players, we had by my count 6 rushing plays, only with a few variations, so I don't think that counts.

As for passing plays, how long does it take to master the bubble screen and more slants than you count in a day?

There's too many problems to address right now. When the running attack is shaky and the passing attack is shaky, obviously there will be some problems on O. When the D gives up 159 YPG rushing in the last 10 games of the season, obviously there will be some problems. When the TO ratio is even in the last 10 games of the season, obviously there will be some problems.

There's a lot of problems that need to be addressed.

Can't run the ball, can't pass. Can't stop either, can't score on ST's.

Ya know, you're a very depressing guy, Rev.

However, this is the first year with new systems on both sides of the ball, plus a new ST coach. Just wait and see.

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 01:36 PM
08 to 09 in a nutshell:

Interior OL still gets pushed around by more powerful DLs.
DL is still weak, though was slightly improved.
09 had a harder schedule than 08.
09 had some of the me first ass clowns on the team decide this was the year to throw a hissy fit, assuming a new young HC could get pushed around.

That's a good point.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 02:08 PM
Just pointing out that it literally couldn't have fallen any worse than it did for Denver timing and opponent-wise. The ONLY two games that were different in the entire 16 game schedule and they get the two division leaders who were by far better than anyone else in those divisions, they faced 3 or 4 teams coming off a bye, they faced Pittsburgh with Polamalu, they faced Baltimore in Baltimore which is a death sentence for them, they faced Philly when they were clearly in the middle of their best ball of the season, and they faced KC after they finally realized that they had a real RB on their roster after all.

That's fine and point that out all you want, but the fact remains that SD improved dramatically, KC doubled their win total (2 to 4 Ha! ), and Denver and Oakland remained the same.

The schedule wasn't nearly as bad as it looked.

Don't be dense. Anybody can look at the schedules side by side and it's no question as to which schedule is significantly harder.

Oh yes and what I'm doing is showing actual facts... not quite as legitimate as eyeballing the schedules side by side, I'm sure, but it'll have to do...

This is an instance where stats lie. They scored 114 in their first 3 games. After that, 19.7 pts per game. And they only averaged 20.3 pts per game during a critical 6 game stretch in which they were trying to make the playoffs. Last year's offense was not near as great as the stats suggest after Week 3.

And your point about the running game? Well this year's OL played much the 2nd half of the season with out Ryan Harris and with inconsistency at LG. Last year's team stayed intact all year long at both positions. The injury argument cuts both ways.

The offense this year was not sexy. In fact, it was down right ugly. But it was nearly as effective as last years. I buy the argument about third down. Much of that has to do with our inability to convert 3rd and short.

No it's not. We skew this year's offensive stats just as much in 3 games (1/3 of our total points came from SD, KC, Philly games). Removing heavy offensive games is stupid.

And any point about Ryan Harris can't carry the kind of weight that SEVEN running backs and a cingular wireless employee carrying the rock, but keep trying.

And, no, the offense wasn't remotely as effective as last year's. The issue isn't firing McDaniels, but just FIXING IT moving forward.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 02:11 PM
There's too many problems to address right now. When the running attack is shaky and the passing attack is shaky, obviously there will be some problems on O. When the D gives up 159 YPG rushing in the last 10 games of the season, obviously there will be some problems. When the TO ratio is even in the last 10 games of the season, obviously there will be some problems.

There's a lot of problems that need to be addressed.

Can't run the ball, can't pass. Can't stop either, can't score on ST's.

Ya know, you're a very depressing guy, Rev.

However, this is the first year with new systems on both sides of the ball, plus a new ST coach. Just wait and see.

Na. My PERSONAL impression is that it ended being a lot more than Josh expected and more than he could handle at a very high level.

That's not an indictment on his ability moving forward as a head coach.

I would like him to bring in a qualified OC that he can trust to assist in further implementing his system, game-planning and CALLING THE PLAYS.

I think that would lighten the load on Josh substantially, maybe inject more creativity into our passing/rushing attacks and maybe, just maybe, reduce his stress level and have some beneficial impact on his interaction with players.

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 02:13 PM
I would like him to bring in a qualified OC that he can trust to assist in further implementing his system, game-planning and CALLING THE PLAYS.

I think that would lighten the load on Josh substantially, maybe inject more creativity into our passing/rushing attacks and maybe, just maybe, reduce his stress level and have some beneficial impact on his interaction with players.

I think this is a great point.

TheReverend
01-04-2010, 02:17 PM
I think this is a great point.

Thanks. It is, in my opinion.

This isn't meant to be a "OMG JOSH MCDANIELS SUCKS! FIRE HIM!" thread, or a "Jay Cutler is 30% more effective with these players than Orton!"

This is just a clear illustration that our offense DID significantly regress when he was handed identical personal and discussing what the causes might be so it can be fixed moving forward.

Not that us talking about it will fix anything... but it's our fun little hobby.

Cito Pelon
01-04-2010, 02:29 PM
Na. My PERSONAL impression is that it ended being a lot more than Josh expected and more than he could handle at a very high level.

That's not an indictment on his ability moving forward as a head coach.

I would like him to bring in a qualified OC that he can trust to assist in further implementing his system, game-planning and CALLING THE PLAYS.

I think that would lighten the load on Josh substantially, maybe inject more creativity into our passing/rushing attacks and maybe, just maybe, reduce his stress level and have some beneficial impact on his interaction with players.

Agreed.

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 02:41 PM
Thanks. It is, in my opinion.

This isn't meant to be a "OMG JOSH MCDANIELS SUCKS! FIRE HIM!" thread, or a "Jay Cutler is 30% more effective with these players than Orton!"

This is just a clear illustration that our offense DID significantly regress when he was handed identical personal and discussing what the causes might be so it can be fixed moving forward.
I wasn't agreeing with the notion that our Offense did significantly regress. In fact, I disagree with that notion. :thumbsup:

I do agree that it is a good idea for Josh to delegate more. To be honest, I am disappointed to see that he has become the face of the personnel arm of the organization. I wish those days had left with Shanny.

Beantown Bronco
01-05-2010, 03:29 AM
The schedule wasn't nearly as bad as it looked.


3rd toughest in the league according to the Sagarin rankings link posted here last week.

watermock
01-05-2010, 03:41 AM
8-8 is 8-8.

2-8 is 2-8.

We fell apart on offense. We couldnt' score from the 50.

We couldn't score fom the 2.

This is funny to other teams.

watermock
01-05-2010, 03:43 AM
Everyone expcted some losses midseason, but not 2-8 after 6-0.

And 2 home losses to bottom feeders.

Merlin
01-07-2010, 10:43 AM
I could say ...
Had you said it that way from the start I would have just agreed with you :D

Now as to why I state one cannot assume, that is because one cannot. McD has done nothing to prove he can rebuild to the degree needed for the style of offense he seems to be married to. There are some McD lovers that automatically assume he can, I'm just pointing out there is no reason to assume so. That being said, he has a good football mind and should be given at least another yr. There is no contradiction in my stance. It merely states, that there is some serious room for doubts, but also some reasonable reasons to give the man one last shot. Just a balanced stance that tilts against McD because of his (and the team's) performance in the last 10 games, and his performance in the draft.

Beantown, it is possible to have serious doubts about someone, but be in a position where one feels they should be given another chance, that is where I find myself with McD.

Tony, this team has digressed at so many levels, it is painful to analyze. And it can potentially get far worse if McD fails at evaluating the talent he obtains next yr, because he will continue this team's transition, which means more quality players leaving (because they are not suited to his offense, or personality issues), and it is unclear what will replace them.

TheReverend
01-07-2010, 10:49 AM
3rd toughest in the league according to the Sagarin rankings link posted here last week.

And the vast majority of that is due to the improvement of the rest of the division (another 10 wins for SD and 4 for KC, factoring in playing them twice) against such a "brutal schedule".

The fact remains. Outside of the division record 87-73 vs 91-69. The schedule wasn't particularly that much harder.

Mediator12
01-07-2010, 01:16 PM
Had you said it that way from the start I would have just agreed with you :D

Now as to why I state one cannot assume, that is because one cannot. McD has done nothing to prove he can rebuild to the degree needed for the style of offense he seems to be married to. There are some McD lovers that automatically assume he can, I'm just pointing out there is no reason to assume so. That being said, he has a good football mind and should be given at least another yr. There is no contradiction in my stance. It merely states, that there is some serious room for doubts, but also some reasonable reasons to give the man one last shot. Just a balanced stance that tilts against McD because of his (and the team's) performance in the last 10 games, and his performance in the draft.

Beantown, it is possible to have serious doubts about someone, but be in a position where one feels they should be given another chance, that is where I find myself with McD.

Tony, this team has digressed at so many levels, it is painful to analyze. And it can potentially get far worse if McD fails at evaluating the talent he obtains next yr, because he will continue this team's transition, which means more quality players leaving (because they are not suited to his offense, or personality issues), and it is unclear what will replace them.

Actually, I think there were more than a few indicators this season that he had made some progress with his offense.

1. He brought in the former Patriots players Hochstein, Gaffney, and Jordan. All were able to upgrade depth and excelled when they were given the opportunity to play.

2. He brought in Buckhalter and Lloyd who both proved they could be effective backups and more.

3. The core group of the team is talented enough to play this system, especially the OT's and Kuper, Orton, Royal, Gaffney, and Stokely. The thing is its the first time in forever they have changed the system. It is not that its much more complicated than the previous one, its just not familiar or comfortable yet.

You would have liked to see them playing better as the year progressed and in December. However, you were seeing the effects that a major change has on the depth and chemistry of a team. The backups lack the consistency and chemistry of the starters to play as this is a new system and it has a much higher variance.

The one Area I think needs to be better is the draft. Their last draft has not been as solid as I would have liked, but they totally overhauled that and I hope they learned some valuable lessons from their last one. This is one place where the talent is extremely deep this year with all the juniors declaring early. All kinds of excellent talent available, I just hope they approach it differently.

TonyR
01-07-2010, 01:33 PM
...this team has digressed at so many levels...

I agree with most of your post, but not this part. I think both our defense, despite the second half decline, and special teams were improved. The offense declined but I think it's a work in progress that should improve next season. McD should be better after learning on the job for a year and using mistakes as opportunities for development. I agree that not all is rosy and there are reasons for concern but I'm more than happy to give the guy another season to build the team.

2KBack
01-07-2010, 01:45 PM
As another point of contention, over the last 5 games of the season Denver averaged 22 points per game in 2008 and 26 points per game in 2009.

TheReverend
01-07-2010, 01:50 PM
As another point of contention, over the last 5 games of the season Denver averaged 22 points per game in 2008 and 26 points per game in 2009.

And of that 130 points, over 1/3 of which were scored running up the score against KC.

2KBack
01-07-2010, 01:59 PM
And of that 130 points, over 1/3 of which were scored running up the score against KC.

you gotta beat the bad teams too, even taking out the defensive score this year was better down the stretch. There may even be a case made the the defense was worse down the stretch this season (I haven't looked yet). that being said, I think it is difficult to say if the team has truly regressed, or maintained a mediocre status quo. Status quo I think would be a positive considering all the changes, at least for this first season. If SIGNIFICANT improvement isn't made in the second season though, then I think we can start discussing the collapse of the franchise.

I'll probably argue that everything is cool either way though...I'm a pretty ****ing cheery guy.

Beantown Bronco
01-07-2010, 02:06 PM
And of that 130 points, over 1/3 of which were scored running up the score against KC.

OVER 1/3 of all of the points scored by Denver last year were scored in 3 games against bottom feeder defenses of New Orleans, Oakland and Cleveland.

Liebs
01-07-2010, 03:07 PM
Both teams sucked. Lost to teams that they shouldn't have. Got blown out a few times. Missed the playoffs. As average as it gets. If the two teams played it would probably be a tie. The Broncos pretty much went sideways from one year to the next.

agreed. we stink equally two years in a row.

TheReverend
01-07-2010, 07:36 PM
you gotta beat the bad teams too, even taking out the defensive score this year was better down the stretch. There may even be a case made the the defense was worse down the stretch this season (I haven't looked yet). that being said, I think it is difficult to say if the team has truly regressed, or maintained a mediocre status quo. Status quo I think would be a positive considering all the changes, at least for this first season. If SIGNIFICANT improvement isn't made in the second season though, then I think we can start discussing the collapse of the franchise.

I'll probably argue that everything is cool either way though...I'm a pretty ****ing cheery guy.

I'm not arguing against any of this.

OVER 1/3 of all of the points scored by Denver last year were scored in 3 games against bottom feeder defenses of New Orleans, Oakland and Cleveland.

And OVER 1/3 of all of the points scored by Denver last year were scored in 3 games this year as well. So what's your point?

Hamrob
01-07-2010, 08:39 PM
so you point out everything he did to the offense, not gonna talk about what he did to the defense though?Yes, the defense was improved...of course there was only one direction to go and that was up. Our defense still sucks....so, we can't give McDaniels to much credit for the defensive improvement. Did he make strides on the defensive side of the ball or just stick a 1yr band aid on it?

As for the offense...it was handed to him gift wrapped. If he just left it alone...just stepped away from the bong....and left it alone. The defensive improvement along with that offense...would have been very competetive.

And, we'd be talking about our broncos on the playoffs instead of what compensation we're going to get for Brandon Marshall.

rugbythug
01-07-2010, 09:44 PM
I think it is Totally Fair and Awesome to Compare Josh McDaniel's First Season to Shanny's 14th. That would be really sweet. Because everything they like to do is so similar and stuff. Maybe we should also compare Shanny to Wade Phillips in His first year. I bet he blows doors and stuff. Living in the past is Awsome. After we get done with this we should sacrifice some Hixon's to the JMFW.

TheReverend
01-07-2010, 10:01 PM
I think it is Totally Fair and Awesome to Compare Josh McDaniel's First Season to Shanny's 14th. That would be really sweet. Because everything they like to do is so similar and stuff. Maybe we should also compare Shanny to Wade Phillips in His first year. I bet he blows doors and stuff. Living in the past is Awsome. After we get done with this we should sacrifice some Hixon's to the JMFW.

Strange...

I thought you wanted to find the "good Broncos forum" because no one was adding to discussion. So in your big opportunity, you'd rather make sarcastic comments?

Big whiner, yet here you are.

As for the couple of points your post ATTEMPTS to make:

Shanahan's first year placed the Broncos offense at #3 in the league

Wade's last year placed the Broncos offense at #6 in the league.

Not an earth shattering improvement, but improvement (and more importantly, NOT regression) nonetheless. Also, showed a 1 game improvement in overall record.

rugbythug
01-07-2010, 10:21 PM
Strange...

I thought you wanted to find the "good Broncos forum" because no one was adding to discussion. So in your big opportunity, you'd rather make sarcastic comments?

Big whiner, yet here you are.

As for the couple of points your post ATTEMPTS to make:

Shanahan's first year placed the Broncos offense at #3 in the league

Wade's last year placed the Broncos offense at #6 in the league.

Not an earth shattering improvement, but improvement (and more importantly, NOT regression) nonetheless. Also, showed a 1 game improvement in overall record.

I could not find the Good broncos Forum. I am stuck here for now. Everyone told me to go to MHR but All I do is read there. And since they are very phone friendly unlike here. I save it for my down time at work.

And to clarify It is not that no one was adding to the discussion. Its that this place is full of douchebags. Bet Welchers. And People who love to play Revisionist History.

From My Perspective.
8-8=8-8

Why does Shanny get a Free Pass Because he was "Rebuilding" He was Rebuilding his own Building. When you Break something, you should also then be afforded the time to go rebuild it? That thinking got Matt Millen and Extension.

Popps
01-07-2010, 11:00 PM
And of that 130 points, over 1/3 of which were scored running up the score against KC.

Yep, and after week 3 last year... we only averaged 19.5 points per game. (Less than our average this season.)

Situational numbers are what you want to make them, aren't they.

Popps
01-07-2010, 11:17 PM
Why does Shanny get a Free Pass Because he was "Rebuilding" He was Rebuilding his own Building. .

You're never going to get an answer to a question like that around here, of course.

The truth is like most things. Shanny did some things right... and wrong. McDaniels will do the same.

Shanny didn't build his team in the peak of the internet age, following up a coach who had won a SB. So, he had the luxury of being able to go 8-8 while flipping over the roster by about 50%.

McDaniels has done the exact same thing, and he's Hitler.

Literally, these coaches couldn't have had much more similar starts... down to the records, player turnover, prior year record... stats improvement/decline from prior coach, etc.

Almost exactly the same... but we're supposed to believe Josh is an evil, arrogant bla bla bla bla, while Shanahan was just doing his job.

It's pure idiocy.

TheReverend
01-08-2010, 07:07 AM
I could not find the Good broncos Forum. I am stuck here for now. Everyone told me to go to MHR but All I do is read there. And since they are very phone friendly unlike here. I save it for my down time at work.

And to clarify It is not that no one was adding to the discussion. Its that this place is full of douchebags. Bet Welchers. And People who love to play Revisionist History.

From My Perspective.
8-8=8-8

Why does Shanny get a Free Pass Because he was "Rebuilding" He was Rebuilding his own Building. When you Break something, you should also then be afforded the time to go rebuild it? That thinking got Matt Millen and Extension.

He doesn't. He got fired. I'm not sure how you and Popps view losing your job a "free pass", but more power to your dillusion.

2KBack
01-08-2010, 07:16 AM
I'm not arguing against any of this.



And OVER 1/3 of all of the points scored by Denver last year were scored in 3 games this year as well. So what's your point?

I think the major difference between the seasons is where you saw the flashes. The defense this season regressed as the season went on, which according to Mediator is basically becasue teams adapted to the system. since there was no tape on Denver's defense to start the season. As the season wore on, the gaps in talent were taken advantage of. I tend to agree with this. That same regression seemed to happen to the Denver offense in 2008. On the other hand there was some small measurable improvement in the offense in 2009 as the season continued. Not much mind you, but the offense found a better groove during the Indy, Philly, and even the second Kansas City game. It wasn't enough to overcome the regression of the defense, but to me it showed that there was promise. In 2008 it was basically one ****ty defense all year, and a steady offensive decline. 2009 was a defense sarting hot then making a dramatic decline, while the offense slowly improved. So while Denver overall basically maintained a pretty mediocre team, at the end of 2009 I feel that the offense was more solid than at the end of 2008, and while the defense seemed to collapse, it showed much more promis overall than the defense of 2008.

TheReverend
01-08-2010, 07:22 AM
I think the major difference between the seasons is where you saw the flashes. The defense this season regressed as the season went on, which according to Mediator is basically becasue teams adapted to the system. since there was no tape on Denver's defense to start the season. As the season wore on, the gaps in talent were taken advantage of. I tend to agree with this. That same regression seemed to happen to the Denver offense in 2008. On the other hand there was some small measurable improvement in the offense in 2009 as the season continued. Not much mind you, but the offense found a better groove during the Indy, Philly, and even the second Kansas City game. It wasn't enough to overcome the regression of the defense, but to me it showed that there was promise. In 2008 it was basically one ****ty defense all year, and a steady offensive decline. 2009 was a defense sarting hot then making a dramatic decline, while the offense slowly improved. So while Denver overall basically maintained a pretty mediocre team, at the end of 2009 I feel that the offense was more solid than at the end of 2008, and while the defense seemed to collapse, it showed much more promis overall than the defense of 2008.

That's exactly what I think but it's the main reason for my concern, outside of your last sentence.

Do you think with a season's worth of game film, if we played them next week, we would beat Cinci, Dallas, or NE again?

We won't have that luxury next season.

2KBack
01-08-2010, 08:12 AM
That's exactly what I think but it's the main reason for my concern, outside of your last sentence.

Do you think with a season's worth of game film, if we played them next week, we would beat Cinci, Dallas, or NE again?

We won't have that luxury next season.

Maybe, maybe not, it was a pretty unpredictable team. That doesn't concern me yet though. With an entire season in the bank now, the staff can take an in depth look at themselves. McD knows what he has and what he needs, as does Nolan. It remains to be seen how they adjust, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.