PDA

View Full Version : Redskins TC Injuries


Drunk Monkey
08-10-2010, 09:53 AM
Redskins, Shanahan keeping injuries at bay
Joseph White, The Associated Press
Aug 9, 6:09 pm EDT

ASHBURN, Va. - Mike Shanahan learned a valuable lesson about injuries during his Denver Broncos days, back when he decided the goal line drill would be the perfect time to crack the whip and make the guys tackle.

"I went full speed, I think, three years in a row in goal line," Shanahan said, "and I lost one guy each year. And I looked at myself and said, 'What are you trying to do with those 12 plays? What's the difference?'"

Now the coach of the Washington Redskins, Shanahan is overseeing one of the healthiest training camps in the land. NFL injuries are a dime a dozen in the heat of August — knees, ankles, sprains and strains — but a practice strategy that revolves around one long, up-tempo session early in the morning is paying dividends.

More below,

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=capress-fbn_healthy_redskins-4168342

Rabb
08-10-2010, 09:55 AM
oh Jesus....here we go

bronco militia
08-10-2010, 09:55 AM
ha ha...I think someone predicted this article and thread last week

lostknight
08-10-2010, 09:57 AM
:-)

For the record, I disagree with Mike's approach just as much as I disagreed with how we did camp and the practice at invesco last week. You need to find a happy balance between running too hard, and running too soft.

crush17
08-10-2010, 09:57 AM
Isn't this a Broncos message board??

Drunk Monkey
08-10-2010, 09:58 AM
Ya, I could really care less. I just want to see the reaction. If I actually knew how to post pictures this would be worth a popcorn .gif

Dr. Broncenstein
08-10-2010, 09:58 AM
I read on espn that Willie Parker may have a tough time making the roster because of....

wait for it....



.....




Ryan Torrain.

Then I laughed like a tasered dolphin.

Drunk Monkey
08-10-2010, 09:58 AM
Isn't this a Broncos message board??

Last I checked. A bronco's board that has been discussing injury for the past 2 weeks. You don't think this is relevant?

Rabb
08-10-2010, 09:59 AM
Isn't it great that our injuries make lostknight so happy?

Glad his point can be proven at the expense of the team.

RonDaChamp24
08-10-2010, 10:13 AM
This is exactly why his players will get hurt during preseason and when regular season comes around the BRONCOS will be a tough, physical team and the Redskins will be soft and finese and it will come back to bite them in the 2nd half of the season.

lostknight
08-10-2010, 10:24 AM
Isn't it great that our injuries make lostknight so happy?

Glad his point can be proven at the expense of the team.

Nice troll. I smile because I predicted this, not because I like the situation. In fact, as I recall, I predicted these type of articles,and took significant grief, even in the light of the six major injuries since I posted, for daring to question how we were practicing.

lostknight
08-10-2010, 10:25 AM
This is exactly why his players will get hurt during preseason and when regular season comes around the BRONCOS will be a tough, physical team and the Redskins will be soft and finese and it will come back to bite them in the 2nd half of the season.

As our second half performance last season indicated, our new approach worked so... erk. actually, waitaminute, even worse collapse second half last season? Nevermind.

TonyR
08-10-2010, 10:28 AM
Shanahan getting by with a little help from old friends
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on August 10, 2010 10:17 AM ET

When the Redskins hired Mike Shanahan, they weren't just hiring a coach. They were hiring the entire "Bronco way" of doing things from the front office to the playing field.

To help Redskins players get a crash course in Shanahan's system, Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that Shanahan has brought in a number of his old stars to help out.

Terrell Davis showed up, spending more than a week with the Redskins running backs. (Willie Parker apparently hasn't been paying close enough attention.) Michael Pittman has helped out, presumably to help with the finer points of third downs and muscle flexing.

Steve Beuerlein has worked with the Redskins quarterbacks, while former Broncos safety Steve Atwater is in Washington, working with the Redskins secondary.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Shanahan gets terrific free labor, while the ex-players get to dabble in coaching without having to truly experience the grind.

It's such a great cheap way to help your team, we're surprised more staffs don't take advantage of it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/10/shanahan-getting-by-with-a-little-help-from-old-friends/

Rabb
08-10-2010, 10:29 AM
Nice troll. I smile because I predicted this, not because I like the situation. In fact, as I recall, I predicted these type of articles,and took significant grief, even in the light of the six major injuries since I posted, for daring to question how we were practicing.

I thought you had me on ignore princess?

TonyR
08-10-2010, 10:30 AM
Josh McDaniels says Broncos' injuries "not the end of the world"
Posted by Michael David Smith on August 10, 2010 1:23 PM ET

When Broncos defensive end Elvis Dumervil suffered a torn pectoral muscle, coach Josh McDaniels acknowledged that no one on the Broncos' roster could replace the star defensive end.

But that doesn't mean McDaniels is panicking.

"It's not the end of the world,'' McDaniels told Don Banks of SI.com. "It's nothing that we're overwhelmed by. In a weird way, it's been slightly motivating to say, 'OK, we're facing some obstacles here, but that's all they are.' It's adversity, sure. But one of our goals from last year to this year was to handle adversity better than we did last season."

Training camp has given the Broncos plenty of opportunities to handle adversity. In addition to losing Dumervil, defensive end Jarvis Moss suffered a broken hand and a host of players on offense -- including running backs Knowshon Moreno, Correll Buckhalter and LenDale White offensive linemen Ryan Clady and Chris Kuper and receivers Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker -- have missed time for one reason or another.

McDaniels, however, is looking for the silver lining.

"But we're going to get the vast majority of those guys back," McDaniels said. "It's almost like you don't want to play a lot of your starters in the preseason anyway, in case they get hurt. Well in our case, we can't play them in August. We have to rest them.''

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/10/josh-mcdaniels-says-broncos-injuries-not-the-end-of-the-world/

McDman
08-10-2010, 10:32 AM
We were trying to be a finesse team when Shanny was here, we were way too soft those last couple of years.

Drek
08-10-2010, 10:42 AM
As our second half performance last season indicated, our new approach worked so... erk. actually, waitaminute, even worse collapse second half last season? Nevermind.

Can't change the culture of a soft team in one camp.

Also, I'd still love to know of what significant injury is a product of up tempo, full contact practices.

Doom's injury happened in a drill that every team runs. Moreno and Buckhalter where non-contact injuries. Decker and Thomas got hurt landing form jumps. I don't see a smoking gun anywhere for the notion that McDaniels was pushing too hard.

bfoflcommish
08-10-2010, 10:50 AM
so we can all now place bets that Skins go 1-3 in december

Hulamau
08-10-2010, 10:50 AM
Redskins, Shanahan keeping injuries at bay
Joseph White, The Associated Press
Aug 9, 6:09 pm EDT

ASHBURN, Va. - Mike Shanahan learned a valuable lesson about injuries during his Denver Broncos days, back when he decided the goal line drill would be the perfect time to crack the whip and make the guys tackle.

"I went full speed, I think, three years in a row in goal line," Shanahan said, "and I lost one guy each year. And I looked at myself and said, 'What are you trying to do with those 12 plays? What's the difference?'"

Now the coach of the Washington Redskins, Shanahan is overseeing one of the healthiest training camps in the land. NFL injuries are a dime a dozen in the heat of August — knees, ankles, sprains and strains — but a practice strategy that revolves around one long, up-tempo session early in the morning is paying dividends.

More below,

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=capress-fbn_healthy_redskins-4168342

He won two SB in the days of going a lot harder .. before he went CLub med. It is a balancing act.

Bronco Yoda
08-10-2010, 10:54 AM
[B]
Terrell Davis showed up, spending more than a week with the Redskins running backs. former Broncos safety Steve Atwater is in Washington, working with the Redskins secondary.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/10/shanahan-getting-by-with-a-little-help-from-old-friends/

Uhh:...:twitch:

Traveler
08-10-2010, 11:10 AM
It will be interesting to see if the the Shanahan led Skins do peak early and fold towards the end of the season.

Having said that, all the injuries Denver has sufferd thus far might actually lead us to a stronger finish towards the end of the year.

jhns
08-10-2010, 11:12 AM
Shanahan getting by with a little help from old friends
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on August 10, 2010 10:17 AM ET

When the Redskins hired Mike Shanahan, they weren't just hiring a coach. They were hiring the entire "Bronco way" of doing things from the front office to the playing field.

To help Redskins players get a crash course in Shanahan's system, Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that Shanahan has brought in a number of his old stars to help out.

Terrell Davis showed up, spending more than a week with the Redskins running backs. (Willie Parker apparently hasn't been paying close enough attention.) Michael Pittman has helped out, presumably to help with the finer points of third downs and muscle flexing.

Steve Beuerlein has worked with the Redskins quarterbacks, while former Broncos safety Steve Atwater is in Washington, working with the Redskins secondary.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Shanahan gets terrific free labor, while the ex-players get to dabble in coaching without having to truly experience the grind.

It's such a great cheap way to help your team, we're surprised more staffs don't take advantage of it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/10/shanahan-getting-by-with-a-little-help-from-old-friends/

That is some cool stuff. Shanahan is the man. As for those whining about the way he does stuff, he got us our only two SBs doing it his way. He kept this team more competitive after losing a great QB, and majority of that team, than most have through history. We were top 5 in wins over his time here. He did a lot more for this team than any coach that worked players harder, including Josh. With all of that, we see nothing but hate for this winning way from "fans" here.

It will be interesting to see if he can turn a top 5 pick team around before Josh gets an 8 win team turned around. I bet he actually improves the side of the ball he is supposed to be great with, unlike what happened with our new coach.

IHaveALight
08-10-2010, 11:15 AM
From what I understand, McD doesn't go full speed for goalline drills either.
What's the big deal?

Anaximines
08-10-2010, 11:15 AM
That is some cool stuff. Shanahan is the man.

Agreed, cool that he's doing that over in Washington and has the players that will come out to help. Always wonder what's going on with guys like Atwater.

theAPAOps5
08-10-2010, 11:26 AM
He won two SB in the days of going a lot harder .. before he went CLub med. It is a balancing act.

I am sure he thought about that too but thought to himself, "I better not bring that up, totally kills my lame train of thought."

Rulon Velvet Jones
08-10-2010, 11:27 AM
That is some cool stuff. Shanahan is the man. As for those whining about the way he does stuff, he got us our only two SBs doing it his way. He kept this team more competitive after losing a great QB, and majority of that team, than most have through history. We were top 5 in wins over his time here. He did a lot more for this team than any coach that worked players harder, including Josh. With all of that, we see nothing but hate for this winning way from "fans" here.

It will be interesting to see if he can turn a top 5 pick team around before Josh gets an 8 win team turned around. I bet he actually improves the side of the ball he is supposed to be great with, unlike what happened with our new coach.

http://tinyurl.com/2848o75

Pony Boy
08-10-2010, 11:31 AM
[B]Terrell Davis showed up, spending more than a week with the Redskins running backs. (Willie Parker apparently hasn't been paying close enough attention.

I hate to see TD do this..... but Willie Parker is on the bubble and Larry Johnson and Clinton Portis are locks to make the team. Shanny would love to prove that Ryan Torrain was not a mistake.

2KBack
08-10-2010, 11:41 AM
no one hates Shanahan, just thought he was done here.

As for his camp, on the radio today they said Washington's starting right tackle is out with a hip issue, and Portis tweaked his groin. Neither are serious, but maybe they should go ahead and make it so you can't touch each other in practice. Also avoid changing direction while running.

DHallblows
08-10-2010, 11:41 AM
Then I laughed like a tasered dolphin.

I just really wanted to quote this...

Rulon Velvet Jones
08-10-2010, 11:48 AM
Too bad you really can't pick and choose when your players get hurt. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen and there's nothing you or your scheduling can do about it.

Ugly Duck
08-10-2010, 11:49 AM
all the injuries Denver has sufferd thus far might actually lead us to a stronger finish towards the end of the year.

I don't get it.....

Rabb
08-10-2010, 11:51 AM
I don't get it.....

I am just guessing but I think he means that we should have some of them back and rested/healthy by mid-season at worst

gtown
08-10-2010, 12:04 PM
Shanny ran a country club. The defense he put out there a few years ago was unspeakably bad. If the Broncos were in the English Premier League, we would have been demoted on the defense alone.

We definitely broke down last year. But that was mostly the inexperienced dlinemen. How many 16 game seasons have Fields, McBean, and Peterson been through? Those guys were starters for the first time in their careers and they hit a wall. This year we have a much deeper dline, and the same talent in the back seven. I expect a good year out of the D even without Doom. The O on the other hand might hit a wall with Walton and Beadles playing significant time as rookies and Clady being out.

DBroncos4life
08-10-2010, 12:17 PM
This is exactly why his players will get hurt during preseason and when regular season comes around the BRONCOS will be a tough, physical team and the Redskins will be soft and finese and it will come back to bite them in the 2nd half of the season.

Out for the year is still out of the year whether it happens in camp, preseason, or the regular season.

Eldorado
08-10-2010, 12:47 PM
That is some cool stuff. Shanahan is the man. As for those whining about the way he does stuff, he got us our only two SBs doing it his way. He kept this team more competitive after losing a great QB, and majority of that team, than most have through history. We were top 5 in wins over his time here. He did a lot more for this team than any coach that worked players harder, including Josh. With all of that, we see nothing but hate for this winning way from "fans" here.

It will be interesting to see if he can turn a top 5 pick team around before Josh gets an 8 win team turned around. I bet he actually improves the side of the ball he is supposed to be great with, unlike what happened with our new coach.

That's not true. I like shanny and was catatonic when he left. TheRev is practically vibrating he's so excited to watch shanny tear through the nfc east. Bunch of others really like shanny and were devastated. We've just moved on.

24champ
08-10-2010, 01:15 PM
I hate to see TD do this..... but Willie Parker is on the bubble and Larry Johnson and Clinton Portis are locks to make the team. Shanny would love to prove that Ryan Torrain was not a mistake.

Torain would be an excellent third down back there. Hopefully he is recovered from the injuries...

Hamrob
08-10-2010, 01:30 PM
Injuries happen...no team escapes them...unless they are LUCKY!

What I like (that is different from the past) about Shanahan...is that he invited in guys like TD and Atwater to help with camp. I really wish he would have done more of that with the Broncos.

Traveler
08-10-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't get it.....

Meaning most of the guys now injuring should be playing their best football since their injuires have had time to heal or they made the adjustment to playing through the pain.

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 01:58 PM
That's not true. I like shanny and was catatonic when he left. TheRev is practically vibrating he's so excited to watch shanny tear through the nfc east. Bunch of others really like shanny and were devastated. We've just moved on.

That IS true. I can't wait to watch how it unfolds over the next few years. Would be a nice way to cap his legacy by getting another ring for himself and one for McNabb too.

Ray Finkle
08-10-2010, 02:13 PM
and the Broncos sucked at the goal line his last few years.....see a correlation?

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2010, 02:31 PM
Shanahan is known to be a "players" coach in that he doesn't baby sit the players, he treats them like men. His TCs are run with the same spirit in that, he's not gonna beat the heck out of the players in TC or practice, but he expects the players to be tough on game day, that is, he expects them to still be professionals.

This is a nice philosophy and it does protect the players against injuries. That being said, Shanahan's teams seem to start off quickly, but then fade down the stretch. Perhaps this is due to Shanny's teams being fresh at the beginning of the season, while the other teams are more run down from training camp and pre-season. Perhaps the other teams get their second wind at the end of the season while Shanny's team starts to wear down?

2KBack
08-10-2010, 02:35 PM
Shanahan is known to be a "players" coach in that he doesn't baby sit the players, he treats them like men. His TCs are run with the same spirit in that, he's not gonna beat the heck out of the players in TC or practice, but he expects the players to be tough on game day, that is, he expects them to still be professionals.

This is a nice philosophy and it does protect the players against injuries. That being said, Shanahan's teams seem to start off quickly, but then fade down the stretch. Perhaps this is due to Shanny's teams being fresh at the beginning of the season, while the other teams are more run down from training camp and pre-season. Perhaps the other teams get their second wind at the end of the season while Shanny's team starts to wear down?


I think it's because Shanahan can out scheme just about anyone. Which is great at the beginning of the season. Eventually teams catch up, and when it comes time to simply outplay the opposition, enforce your will, the team just doesn't have what it takes.

UberBroncoMan
08-10-2010, 03:20 PM
Injuries happen...no team escapes them...unless they are LUCKY!

What I like (that is different from the past) about Shanahan...is that he invited in guys like TD and Atwater to help with camp. I really wish he would have done more of that with the Broncos.

I think the year away was huge for him. Personally I wish Shanahan just took off a year from the team after the AFC Championship loss for "personal reasons" then came back like this. Oh well!

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Shanahan is known to be a "players" coach in that he doesn't baby sit the players, he treats them like men. His TCs are run with the same spirit in that, he's not gonna beat the heck out of the players in TC or practice, but he expects the players to be tough on game day, that is, he expects them to still be professionals.

This is a nice philosophy and it does protect the players against injuries. That being said, Shanahan's teams seem to start off quickly, but then fade down the stretch. Perhaps this is due to Shanny's teams being fresh at the beginning of the season, while the other teams are more run down from training camp and pre-season. Perhaps the other teams get their second wind at the end of the season while Shanny's team starts to wear down?

Disproved this. Shanahan's teams have historically been either better than or same as in the second half of the season far more often than not.

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Disproved this. Shanahan's teams have historically been either better than or same as in the second half of the season far more often than not.

Under Shanny, the Broncos had 7 years of playoff appearances ^5 and 7 years of .500 football. I'm sure you know all the details of the playoff runs as they are the best part of Mike Shanahan's tenure.

As for the .500 seasons, this is what I see:

1995 the team went 4-4 after the bye
1999 the team went 3-2 after the bye
2001 the team went 4-4 after the bye
2002 the team went 3-5 after the bye
2006 the team went 3-5 second half of season
2007 the team went 4-4 second half of season
2008 the team went 4-4 second half of the season

he data shows the Broncos teams were batting .500 during the second half of the seasons in which they did not go to the playoffs.

The MVPlaya
08-10-2010, 04:43 PM
The Broncos are no longer a soft ass team. It is what it is, and Shanahan's tactics haven't gotten the Broncos anywhere. It's a new generation of football, but the same core is there. The top teams in the NFL year in and year out are the most physical teams, who run, guess what? Physical camps.

We aren't getting punched in the mouth on Sundays and staying down anymore.

I think what needs to happen, is that some start following or at least peeping out other team's training camps and how they run it... then you'll really get a better perspective instead of talking out of your ass.

There's teams that run a drill called the Oklahoma drill... research it. Did we run it? From everything I've read, and I can't recall that we did.

Here is a classic example of a team who, by leaps and bounds, improved last season as a WHOLE team, and played solid football EVERY Sunday... due to physical football.

The 49ers. They run probably the MOST physical camp in the league, and last year they had the WORST offensive coord. Can't scheme out ****. Take a look @ there record and scores. They're 1 miracle throw away from a 9-7 record and gave a colts a run (18-14)... and look at some of the other scores.

This year in camp?

49ers have had 3 concussions, their starting Center BROKE HIS LEG, their 1st round DT from 2008 just straight up LEFT camp (no one knows why), and yeah, a lot of other dings. The run the Oklahoma drill.

So fans, there are 31 other teams in the NFL, take a sniff at some of them, maybe you won't make idiotic inputs, and maybe, just maybe, you'll come to a realization, that we aren't doing anything close to extreme.

Merlin
08-10-2010, 04:48 PM
i can't wait to watch how it unfolds over the next few years. Would be a nice way to cap his legacy by getting another ring for himself and one for mcnabb too.
+1

Merlin
08-10-2010, 04:50 PM
and the Broncos sucked at the goal line his last few years.....see a correlation?
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the RBs and OL that were playing for him, especially in his last season.

Merlin
08-10-2010, 04:55 PM
[t]he data shows the Broncos teams were batting .500 during the second half of the seasons in which they did not go to the playoffs.
Which is consistent with what Rev is saying, assuming they played close to 500 those seasons, which in most cases is true.

Merlin
08-10-2010, 04:59 PM
We aren't getting punched in the mouth on Sundays and staying down anymore.[/B]
No, we are finishing 2-8 and experiencing the worst collapse in Broncos history and historical proportions in the context of the NFL.

Could you please show the evidence for your claim. An anecdotal comment about SF is not data. I would love to read any hard data you have to support your claim...I'm sure it is easy to gather since you state it is evident.

Thanks in advance.

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 05:00 PM
Under Shanny, the Broncos had 7 years of playoff appearances ^5 and 7 years of .500 football. I'm sure you know all the details of the playoff runs as they are the best part of Mike Shanahan's tenure.

As for the .500 seasons, this is what I see:

1995 the team went 4-4 after the bye
1999 the team went 3-2 after the bye
2001 the team went 4-4 after the bye
2002 the team went 3-5 after the bye
2006 the team went 3-5 second half of season
2007 the team went 4-4 second half of season
2008 the team went 4-4 second half of the season

he data shows the Broncos teams were batting .500 during the second half of the seasons in which they did not go to the playoffs.

First of all, those absolutely aren't .500 seasons.... there were only two .500 seasons, and only 2 "losing seasons". Secondly, nice skew to the discussion to try and make a point. Why would we disqualify postseason seasons? Regardless, let's look at what you have closer:

1995 4-4 before the bye, so no 2nd half slide.
1999 4-7 before the bye, so there was a marked improvement after the bye
2001 the bye week was week 15, so you have your figures mixed up. for this season lets shift back to the original halves discussion since that appears to be what you've done. 4-4 for the first half, so no 2nd half slide
2002 6-2 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half slide
2006 6-2 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half slide (note: there was also a little QB change, but w/e)
2007 3-5 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half improvement
2008 4-4 first half of the season, so there was no 2nd half slide

So... even from the slanted perspective you put to this discussion, there were only two instances of performing worse in the 2nd half/after the bye out of 7 weighted examples, not taking into account playoff seasons.

Can we finally put this stupid myth to rest now?

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 05:03 PM
^ correction, 2001 was also an 8-8 season so there were 3 .500 seasons in Mike's 16 year tenure.

The MVPlaya
08-10-2010, 05:03 PM
No, we are finishing 2-8 and experiencing the worst collapse in Broncos history and historical proportions in the context of the NFL.

Could you please show the evidence for your claim. An anecdotal comment about SF is not data. I would love to read any hard data you have to support your claim...I'm sure it is easy to gather since you state it is evident.

Thanks in advance.

Support my claim of what? That we are a more physical team?

~Crash~
08-10-2010, 05:06 PM
**** happens

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2010, 05:07 PM
First of all, those absolutely aren't .500 seasons.... there were only two .500 seasons, and only 2 "losing seasons". Secondly, nice skew to the discussion to try and make a point. Why would we disqualify postseason seasons? Regardless, let's look at what you have closer:

1995 4-4 before the bye, so no 2nd half slide.
1999 4-7 before the bye, so there was a marked improvement after the bye
2001 the bye week was week 15, so you have your figures mixed up. for this season lets shift back to the original halves discussion since that appears to be what you've done. 4-4 for the first half, so no 2nd half slide
2002 6-2 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half slide
2006 6-2 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half slide (note: there was also a little QB change, but w/e)
2007 3-5 first half of the season, so there was a 2nd half improvement
2008 4-4 first half of the season, so there was no 2nd half slide

So... even from the slanted perspective you put to this discussion, there were only two instances of performing worse in the 2nd half/after the bye out of 7 weighted examples, not taking into account playoff seasons.

Can we finally put this stupid myth to rest now?

Dude, chill. My post was confirming what you said. I didn't post it to argue, there was no "slant" just the data. Yes, 2001 the bye was in week 15 and the team went 4-4 during the second half of the season.

Tombstone RJ
08-10-2010, 05:11 PM
^ correction, 2001 was also an 8-8 season so there were 3 .500 seasons in Mike's 16 year tenure.

The 7 season's in which the Broncos did not go to the playoffs, the Broncos floated around .500. If you take those seasons and average them out, the basically come to .500.

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 05:29 PM
Dude, chill. My post was confirming what you said. I didn't post it to argue, there was no "slant" just the data. Yes, 2001 the bye was in week 15 and the team went 4-4 during the second half of the season.

It's not specifically directed at you, but rather the "start strong and 2nd half collapse" people that perpetuate the myth that has absolutely no basis in reality.

2KBack
08-10-2010, 06:21 PM
It's not specifically directed at you, but rather the "start strong and 2nd half collapse" people that perpetuate the myth that has absolutely no basis in reality.

I wouldn't say it has no basis in reality, it just isn't very dramatic. If you look at every season from 95 to 08, you can see that Denver has only finished the regular season stronger than it started twice in 99 and 00. Of course some of that has to do with taking games off in 98 (and maybe in 96 and 97 as well). Just look at the first 5 games of the season versus the last 5 games.
1995 2-3 then 2-3
1996 4-1 then 3-2
1997 5-0 then 3-2
1998 5-0 then 3-2
1999 1-4 then 2-3 1st improvement
2000 2-3 then 4-1 2nd improvement
2001 3-2 then 2-3
2002 4-1 then 2-3
2003 4-1 then 4-1
2004 4-1 then 3-2
2005 4-1 then 4-1
2006 4-1 then 2-3
2007 2-3 then 2-3
2008 4-1 then 2-3

overall Denver was 49-22 in its first 5 games and 38-32 in it's final 5 games. Not enough to be called a second half collapse I don't think, but enough to build a reputation of being a strong early season team, but a weak finishing one. So what does it all mean? It means I'm bored and decided to argue that there is some basis in reality, even if it practically meaningless and arguably cherry picked.

Archer81
08-10-2010, 06:23 PM
I dont care about the Redskins...or who coaches them.

If its not Bronco related...why bother?


:Broncos:

LongDongJohnson
08-10-2010, 06:47 PM
expect the redskins to be near the bottom in run defense this year.

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 09:22 PM
I wouldn't say it has no basis in reality, it just isn't very dramatic. If you look at every season from 95 to 08, you can see that Denver has only finished the regular season stronger than it started twice in 99 and 00. Of course some of that has to do with taking games off in 98 (and maybe in 96 and 97 as well). Just look at the first 5 games of the season versus the last 5 games.
1995 2-3 then 2-3
1996 4-1 then 3-2
1997 5-0 then 3-2
1998 5-0 then 3-2
1999 1-4 then 2-3 1st improvement
2000 2-3 then 4-1 2nd improvement
2001 3-2 then 2-3
2002 4-1 then 2-3
2003 4-1 then 4-1
2004 4-1 then 3-2
2005 4-1 then 4-1
2006 4-1 then 2-3
2007 2-3 then 2-3
2008 4-1 then 2-3

overall Denver was 49-22 in its first 5 games and 38-32 in it's final 5 games. Not enough to be called a second half collapse I don't think, but enough to build a reputation of being a strong early season team, but a weak finishing one. So what does it all mean? It means I'm bored and decided to argue that there is some basis in reality, even if it practically meaningless and arguably cherry picked.

I'm glad you see the flaw in cherry picking and adjusting based on the end result.

Bottom line: you have to go to great lengths manipulating the actual end product results to try and find some potential basis in reality to support the absurd argument.

TheReverend
08-10-2010, 09:24 PM
I dont care about vagina...or who gets to touch it.

If its not cock related...why bother?


:Broncos:

Fixed :)

watermock
08-10-2010, 09:29 PM
Denver went 6-0 with 2 magical plays.

The Gaffney tip, which rivaled the immaculate reception, and BM's incredible leap and run thru 4 defenders.

Regardless, after 6-0 Denver went 2-8 without any serious injuries.

Wes Mantooth
08-10-2010, 09:33 PM
D@mnit, I am sure that Greek had something to do with this.

Cito Pelon
08-11-2010, 09:14 AM
Broncos East.

enjolras
08-11-2010, 09:51 AM
Denver went 6-0 with 2 magical plays.

The Gaffney tip, which rivaled the immaculate reception, and BM's incredible leap and run thru 4 defenders.

Regardless, after 6-0 Denver went 2-8 without any serious injuries.

Except for major chunks of the offensive lines. Ryan Harris ring a bell?

Cito Pelon
08-11-2010, 10:09 AM
I'm glad you see the flaw in cherry picking and adjusting based on the end result.

Bottom line: you have to go to great lengths manipulating the actual end product results to try and find some potential basis in reality to support the absurd argument.

There was a certain pattern of strong start/weak finish in the 2000's for Shanny's Broncos:

2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

So there was a pattern of fading from a stronger start to a weaker finish.

Granted, there were a lot of factors that went into it, but a bottom line is a bottom line.

Hogan11
08-11-2010, 10:11 AM
I dont care about the Redskins...or who coaches them.

If its not Bronco related...why bother?


:Broncos:

Various degrees of "Atlas Syndrome" ..unfortunately, you can expect a ton of Deadskin bullshat this season.

TheReverend
08-11-2010, 11:03 AM
There was a certain pattern of strong start/weak finish in the 2000's for Shanny's Broncos:

2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

So there was a pattern of fading from a stronger start to a weaker finish.

Granted, there were a lot of factors that went into it, but a bottom line is a bottom line.

So you don't feel there's a flaw in you adjusting the sample size to suit your agenda with EVERY example you listed? Number of games you use to try to and make your point 7, 8, 4, 6, 9, 10, 5... you literally didn't reuse ANYTHING that could be even remotely mistaken for a statistical trend, dude.

I'm not sure how you expect something like that to be even considered serious.

Cito Pelon
08-11-2010, 11:25 AM
So you don't feel there's a flaw in you adjusting the sample size to suit your agenda with EVERY example you listed? Number of games you use to try to and make your point 7, 8, 4, 6, 9, 10, 5... you literally didn't reuse ANYTHING that could be even remotely mistaken for a statistical trend, dude.

I'm not sure how you expect something like that to be even considered serious.

Sure there was an adjustment to the sample size, but still.
2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

If you start out 4-3 and then go 4-5 to finish at 8-8, that's finishing weaker than you started.
If you start out 6-2, then go 3-5 to finish 9-7, that's finishing weaker than you started.
If you start out 4-0, then go 6-6 to finish 10-6, that's finishing weaker than you started. Etc..

The bottom line is in the 2000's the Broncos didn't finish what started out to be strong seasons, and the result was only one AFC West title, and only one playoff victory.

I can see your argument, and I can argue it both ways, but the bottom line is strong starts didn't result in Division titles, nor playoff wins.

TheReverend
08-11-2010, 11:45 AM
Sure there was an adjustment to the sample size, but still.
2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

If you start out 4-3 and then go 4-5 to finish at 8-8, that's finishing weaker than you started.
If you start out 6-2, then go 3-5 to finish 9-7, that's finishing weaker than you started.
If you start out 4-0, then go 6-6 to finish 10-6, that's finishing weaker than you started. Etc..

The bottom line is in the 2000's the Broncos didn't finish what started out to be strong seasons, and the result was only one AFC West title, and only one playoff victory.

I can see your argument, and I can argue it both ways, but the bottom line is strong starts didn't result in Division titles, nor playoff wins.

No, Cito, no...

Let's go step by step and we'll even do it on your terms, okay? I'm fine with doing this by your interpretation because "start of the season" is very subjective to the interpreters perception.

So let's start with step one:

How many games do you define the "start of the season"?

Ray Finkle
08-11-2010, 11:53 AM
Denver went 6-0 with 2 magical plays.

The Gaffney tip, which rivaled the immaculate reception, and BM's incredible leap and run thru 4 defenders.

Regardless, after 6-0 Denver went 2-8 without any serious injuries.

that would be Hall's tip, captain clueless....Marshall was the intended WR. Gaffney wasn't even on the field.

Hogan11
08-11-2010, 11:56 AM
that would be Hall's tip, captain clueless....Marshall was the intended WR. Gaffney wasn't even on the field.

Forget it, he's rollin'

Play2win
08-11-2010, 11:57 AM
that would be Hall's tip, captain clueless....Marshall was the intended WR. Gaffney wasn't even on the field.

Hilarious! :rofl: :rofl:

Cito Pelon
08-11-2010, 12:23 PM
No, Cito, no...

Let's go step by step and we'll even do it on your terms, okay? I'm fine with doing this by your interpretation because "start of the season" is very subjective to the interpreters perception.

So let's start with step one:

How many games do you define the "start of the season"?

First off, I'm not interpreting anything. I'm talking numbers, pure numbers. and the numbers don't lie.

2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

You can argue (as I would to defend the point you're trying to make) that I'm arbitrarily trying to make something out of nothing. But that's not the case. In every case above, Denver in the 2000's most seasons started well above .500, but after having a great start finished the season in a weaker fashion than they started the season.

TheReverend
08-11-2010, 12:48 PM
First off, I'm not interpreting anything. I'm talking numbers, pure numbers. and the numbers don't lie.

2001 - start 4-3, finish 8-8.
2002 - start 6-2, finish 9-7.
2003 - start 4-0, finish 10-6
2004 - start 5-1, finish 10-6.
2005 - nothing to complain about.
2006 - start 7-2, finish 9-7.
2007 - start 5-5, finish 7-9.
2008 - start 4-1, finish 8-8.

You can argue (as I would to defend the point you're trying to make) that I'm arbitrarily trying to make something out of nothing. But that's not the case. In every case above, Denver in the 2000's most seasons started well above .500, but after having a great start finished the season in a weaker fashion than they started the season.

No, Cito, the numbers mean nothing when you change your definition for "start of the season" with every season just so you crowbar it into supporting your view.

Here, let me show you how I can do the same thing with the exact same seasons because you're not grasping the concept

2001 - start 3-3 or 4-4, finish 8-8 (see if you go one game prior to where you chose to cut your sample off, or one game later, it's the exact same pace that we finished at. so you're clearly doing this consciously)
2002 - start 7-6, finish 9-7. (finished stronger with 2-1!)
2003 - start 5-4, finish 10-6 (OMG STRONGER FINISH!)
2004 - start 1-1, finish 10-6. (WHOA, ON PACE FOR 500 AT THE START BUT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS, MEGA STRONG FINISH!)
2006 - start 0-1, finish 9-7. (Big time recovery!)
2007 - start 2-3, finish 7-9. (Good improvement!)
2008 - start 4-4, finish 8-8. (same)

So we clearly were one of the best teams EVER at recovering from slow starts with strong finishes! I'm just talking numbers Cito, and numbers don't lie.










....unless you stack them to lie like you're doing. You can't establish any kind of factual based view on this until you establish a consistent definition of "start of the season" and "down the stretch".

Ray Finkle
08-11-2010, 12:55 PM
No, Cito, the numbers mean nothing when you change your definition for "start of the season" with every season just so you crowbar it into supporting your view.

Here, let me show you how I can do the same thing with the exact same seasons because you're not grasping the concept

2001 - start 3-3 or 4-4, finish 8-8 (see if you go one game prior to where you chose to cut your sample off, or one game later, it's the exact same pace that we finished at. so you're clearly doing this consciously)
2002 - start 7-6, finish 9-7. (finished stronger with 2-1!)
2003 - start 5-4, finish 10-6 (OMG STRONGER FINISH!)
2004 - start 1-1, finish 10-6. (WHOA, ON PACE FOR 500 AT THE START BUT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS, MEGA STRONG FINISH!)
2006 - start 0-1, finish 9-7. (Big time recovery!)
2007 - start 2-3, finish 7-9. (Good improvement!)
2008 - start 4-4, finish 8-8. (same)

So we clearly were one of the best teams EVER at recovering from slow starts with strong finishes! I'm just talking numbers Cito, and numbers don't lie.










....unless you stack them to lie like you're doing. You can't establish any kind of factual based view on this until you establish a consistent definition of "start of the season" and "down the stretch".


much like the obsession with true blood or american idol, I see what you two are arguing about but am not really paying attention.....looks interesting though.... :D

TheReverend
08-11-2010, 01:02 PM
much like the obsession with true blood or american idol, I see what you two are arguing about but am not really paying attention.....looks interesting though.... :D

It's really not interesting.

Here's some cliffs:

He's not using any consistent sample size and cherry picking to try and support his argument, so he has no point that's grounded in reality.

Ray Finkle
08-11-2010, 01:09 PM
It's really not interesting.

Here's some cliffs:

He's not using any consistent sample size and cherry picking to try and support his argument, so he has no point that's grounded in reality.

ah....message board stats....

jhns
08-11-2010, 01:50 PM
Rev wins and Cito would fail any statistics class. He is showing why my teacher always told us most every statistic is crap. You can spin them so easily and people always do to fit their agenda.

As for this finishing bad crap, we did the same in the SB years. I would say it didn't matter then. Same can be said for Shanahans more relaxed approach to practice. Elway went through like 3 full practices in those SB years. A lot of other vets didn't have more than 10 full practices in that time. They seemed to play well and finished strong.... I would say those two seasons make these theories look dumb.

The real reasons Shanahan didn't win 10 more SBs are easy to pin down.

1) Loss of HOF QB and many other great players after the SBs. What I don't get about the hate is that we were better the dacade following these losses than most teams through history that have had similar losses.

2) A period of horrible drafting. I think Shanahan turned it around in the last few years but there were a bunch of bad drafts before that which left us really hurting for depth.

3) He couldn't find a good defensive coordinator. We had top 10 defenses after the SB but they all would really suck against good offenses. The last few years were just sad on this side of the ball.

4) Several key players were injured during the bad drafting time and that made the injuries a lot worse. We had no one to replace guys like Wilson and it showed. A lot of the years didn't see a large number of injuries, it was just that there were a few that hurt a lot.


The way he practices has little to do with anything. I would say being top 5 in wins over his time here, even with the above holding him back, says that he knows what he is doing in terms of preperation and getting players to execute. His problems were always on the GM side of things, not the coaching.

tsiguy96
08-11-2010, 01:55 PM
on sirius at redskins camp, everyone was talking about the camp and how lucky the rookies are to be drafted by shanahan and not any other team, and teh vets were talking about how great it is to have his camps compared to anyone else. funny to hear the players themselves admit his camps are nothing.

HAT
08-11-2010, 02:25 PM
He's not using any consistent sample size and cherry picking to try and support his argument, so he has no point that's grounded in reality.

You want a consistent sample size? Use the calendar...That's reality.

Denver's record & winning % broken down from September-November, followed by December/January, including playoffs. (You know, when it matters most)


2000: 8-4 .666 vs. 3-2 .600
2001: 6-5 .545 vs. 2-3 .400
2002: 7-4 .636 vs. 2-3 .400
2003: 7-5 .583 vs. 3-2 .600 (Hooray! a .017 increase!)
2004: 7-4 .636 vs. 3-3 .500
2005: 9-2 .818 vs. 5-2 .714
2006: 7-4 .636 vs. 2-3 .400
2007: 5-6 .454 vs. 2-3 .400
2008: 7-5 .583 vs. 1-3 .250

Denver increased it's W% when it mattered most ONE year out of NINE this decade....By a mere 17 basis points.

When you look at it in it's entirety, it's ugly.

The 2000's era Shanahan led Broncos had a W% of .617 September through November. That translates to 9.9 wins when projected out to a 16 game season. Those same teams had a W% of .489 in December & January. That translates to 7.8 wins when projected out to a 16 game season.

So basically, with the exception of a single year where they maintained a consistent W%....They were "2 games" worse in December and January (You know, when it matters most)

CHFF is dead on with their assessment:

Ohh, football is such a fickle b****, Broncos fans. Each year for the past four you thought you were watching a contender, only to learn so cruelly that you were watching a pathetic pretender. We can’t explain it. But we do know that institutional trends develop within organizations so strong that they survive changes of players and leadership. So far, Denver’s inability to play 16 games has all the makings of one of this deep-seeded institutional flaws.

We can only hope that their conclusion is wrong.

2KBack
08-11-2010, 02:28 PM
ah....message board stats....

stats in general, if you're creative enough you can prove just about anything

Hogan11
08-11-2010, 02:34 PM
stats in general, if you're creative enough you can prove just about anything

When it comes to stats, you know the old saying : Figures don't lie, but liars can figure

Ray Finkle
08-11-2010, 02:54 PM
stats in general, if you're creative enough you can prove just about anything

I am a stats person....I could take 2 random stats "analyze them" and correlate something completely stupid.

BroncoDoug
08-11-2010, 03:13 PM
DL Scott Darrion was carted off the field during Wednesday's practice in stifling heat and treated for dehydration. ... RB Clinton Portis (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=3579) returned after missing Tuesday's practice with a sore left groin. ... WR Malcolm Kelly (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=11285) (hamstring), RT Jammal Brown (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8428) (hip), WR Mike Furrey (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4939) (concussion), S Chris Horton (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=11483) (groin) and QB Richard Bartel (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=10971) (hamstring) won't play Friday. ... S LaRon Landry (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=10451) (toe) was limited in practice Wednesday but he will play.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/news/story?id=5455954


In the notes section of an article on a fan wearing a McNabb jersey to an Eagles practice.... They have injuries like everyone else

TheReverend
08-11-2010, 03:16 PM
You want a consistent sample size? Use the calendar...That's reality.

But that's not reality. It's significantly better than the example that Cito tossed out there, but in some cases you're looking at a 4 game sample size and sometimes you're looking 7. In one case, each game carries significantly more weight than the other.

Explain this to me:
What's the difference to game 10 in November as opposed to game 12 in December? The same amount of football has been played and the same practice wear and tear regardless of when it was played, yet, according to your figures, if we had played it in November we were significantly stronger.

It's ridiculous. Break it down by schedule and tell me if you can find ANY indication.

HAT
08-11-2010, 03:34 PM
But that's not reality. It's significantly better than the example that Cito tossed out there, but in some cases you're looking at a 4 game sample size and sometimes you're looking 7. In one case, each game carries significantly more weight than the other.

Explain this to me:
What's the difference to game 10 in November as opposed to game 12 in December? The same amount of football has been played and the same practice wear and tear regardless of when it was played, yet, according to your figures, if we had played it in November we were significantly stronger.


I'm just stating that it is a FACT that Denver has consistently played worse football in December & January than it has in the first 3/4 of the season. 2009 included. It's not some myth that the MSM or the chicken littles around here created. Fair point on me including the playoffs above but even if you throw them out, the trend is there.

I'm not arguing the cause (especially the soft TC or hard TC aspect), or even that the result actually means anything. There's only 16 games. They all matter. December is just magnified in most people's minds b/c of play-off implications.

The MVPlaya
08-11-2010, 05:26 PM
The way he practices has little to do with anything. I would say being top 5 in wins over his time here, even with the above holding him back, says that he knows what he is doing in terms of preperation and getting players to execute.

1 of the reasons we lost to the Steelers in 2006 was because they were a more physical team.

misturanderson
08-11-2010, 07:06 PM
1 of the reasons we lost to the Steelers in 2006 was because they were a more physical team.

I would put that about 4th on the list behind Jake Plummer's inability to handle any sort of adversity in pressure situations (his reaction was usually to make it much worse by playing like a 7th round rookie), defensive play calling on 3rd and long and the steelers' ability to convert against a defense that they had thoroughly figured out and that was making no adjustments. Those are not listed in any particular order.

That game sucked so bad.

jhns
08-12-2010, 07:27 AM
1 of the reasons we lost to the Steelers in 2006 was because they were a more physical team.

We beat them during the season and beat a physical Pats team the week before. I would say these two things prove you wrong. We were beat because our d coordinator called an all out blitz every other play and they figured out how to counter it. We lost because Plummer wet the bed in most every big game situation he was ever in.

Cito Pelon
08-12-2010, 07:34 AM
No, Cito, the numbers mean nothing when you change your definition for "start of the season" with every season just so you crowbar it into supporting your view.

Here, let me show you how I can do the same thing with the exact same seasons because you're not grasping the concept

2001 - start 3-3 or 4-4, finish 8-8 (see if you go one game prior to where you chose to cut your sample off, or one game later, it's the exact same pace that we finished at. so you're clearly doing this consciously)
2002 - start 7-6, finish 9-7. (finished stronger with 2-1!)
2003 - start 5-4, finish 10-6 (OMG STRONGER FINISH!)
2004 - start 1-1, finish 10-6. (WHOA, ON PACE FOR 500 AT THE START BUT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS, MEGA STRONG FINISH!)
2006 - start 0-1, finish 9-7. (Big time recovery!)
2007 - start 2-3, finish 7-9. (Good improvement!)
2008 - start 4-4, finish 8-8. (same)

So we clearly were one of the best teams EVER at recovering from slow starts with strong finishes! I'm just talking numbers Cito, and numbers don't lie.

....unless you stack them to lie like you're doing. You can't establish any kind of factual based view on this until you establish a consistent definition of "start of the season" and "down the stretch".

Sure, if I was starting from your point of view, I'd argue it the same way.

But, I'm arguing it starting from MY point of view, therefore I have to argue it differently. You know that, you just like to argue. I see your point, and this argument will be going on 10 years from now, same as those that still argue about Dan Reeves.

And I DID amend my argument to eliminate the "down the stretch" part. You're right that "down the stretch" is too arbitrary, so I changed it to just saying very strong start, but "weaker" finish.

So, you forced me to backtrack.

bronco militia
08-12-2010, 07:44 AM
I would put that about 4th on the list behind Jake Plummer's inability to handle any sort of adversity in pressure situations (his reaction was usually to make it much worse by playing like a 7th round rookie), defensive play calling on 3rd and long and the steelers' ability to convert against a defense that they had thoroughly figured out and that was making no adjustments. Those are not listed in any particular order.

That game sucked so bad.

this