Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Broncos O likely to regress to the mean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Broncos O likely to regress to the mean

    Or, at least more likely to do so than Seattle's defense, according to Chase Stuart at FiveThirtyEight. Not a terribly compelling analysis but somewhat interesting.
    Denver produced 2013’s record-breaking numbers while playing defenses from the AFC South and the NFC East; those will be replaced this year by the AFC East and the NFC West, divisions that present much more formidable challenges. That’s a significant change.

    According to Football Outsiders, Denver played the third-easiest slate of opposing defenses in 2013. Based purely on adjusted net yards per attempt, the average defense Manning faced last year was 0.44 ANY/A below average, and that’s after adjusting those defenses’ ratings for the fact that they played Manning. Only Alex Smith and Robert Griffin III faced more cupcakes. Last year, Manning didn’t Omaha against a single defense that ranked in the top eight in strength-of-schedule ANY/A; this year, he’s set to face six opponents that ranked in the top eight in that metric in 2013.
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ere-last-year/

  • #2
    I think even the biggest Bronco homer fan is more than willing to acknowledge that it is unlikely for the offense to replicate their record numbers from the 2013 season. We face significantly improved opposition this year in the AFC East and NFC West.

    Comment


    • #3
      Damn and I thought the offense was going to break their own record this year.

      Comment


      • #4
        ...and that’s after adjusting those defenses’ ratings for the fact that they played Manning
        How exactly does this happen?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Shananahan View Post
          How exactly does this happen?
          Their numbers include their games against the Broncos.

          Comment


          • #6
            "Last year, Manning didn’t Omaha against a single defense that ranked in the top eight in strength-of-schedule ANY/A; this year, he’s set to face six opponents that ranked in the top eight in that metric in 2013."

            Lazy comparison. Did they face a top 8 s-o-s from 2012 last year? Will those same 6 be top 8 AFTER this year?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HAT View Post
              Lazy comparison. Did they face a top 8 s-o-s from 2012 last year? Will those same 6 be top 8 AFTER this year?
              That's a very fair point. But, that being said, we're almost certain to face a much better defensive slate than the 3rd easiest this year. No matter how you slice it, the road will be tougher. And I don't think the guy's point is that we're going to suck. He's just suggesting that statistics suggest we're going to regress towards the mean this year on offense. He doesn't say how far that move will be. Hopefully any statistical regression we do see will be minor, and will be more than made up for by a larger improvement on the defensive side of the ball.
              Last edited by TonyR; 08-20-2014, 09:30 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Kind of bs in the way they skew the stats to fit the article. But honestly no one was expecting offensive output like last season. We all expect more balance and lower numbers with an improved defense

                Comment


                • #9
                  Exchange yards and TDs for wins and I will be happy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is not meant for the OP...but the premise is just silly. You mean, we won't break several all-time NFL records again? I mean, it's not a stretch to gamble on the under here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would like to see a dominant running game be the reason for a statistical decline in scoring. Cold weather / hostile road games / playoff rule enforcement sure make the Nintendo offense difficult to sustain when it matters.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Before the 2013 season, everyone was saying we couldn't repeat as AFC champ because we were playing the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, the Philadelphia Eagles, and the New York Giants. Such a tough slate of opponents would surely doom us to a 8-8 record, at best.

                        Before the 2014 season, I'm hearing that we can't possibly replicate the 2013 successes, since we'll be playing the Seattle Seahawks, the San Francisco 49ers, the St. Louis Rams, and the Arizona Cardinals. This murderer's row of opponents will cause us to go 10-6 or 11-5, at best.

                        Bring it on, b****es.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I see WHY they want to say this, because it is common sense that no one will re-break the records they just broke last year.

                          However, they fail to mention another very relevant analytical fact: Nothing varies year to year like defensive numbers! A fact that Football outsiders has always used in their preseason analysis. Of all of last years statistics, nothing is more variable than defensive DVOA and nothing is more susceptible to who teams actually play on offenses that are more resilient to variation.

                          SEA actually plays a few real offenses this year and the new rules will apply to their sticky methods in coverage. So, while the premise can be backed with numbers from last year, I am not using anything said in that article to speculate on what is going to happen this year.

                          As I have always said, using isolated football statistics removes 2 primary elements of NFL football. Game planning and Play calling. It also is extremely variable week to week which just goes to show you how talent is not as important as coaching and execution in the NFL. It also is a huge matchup game and while certain teams CAN be poor overall they can still matchup well with certain teams schemes and personnel.

                          There is no other Major sport on the planet that relies on Coaching More than the NFL. Stats just reduce the games to outcomes and fail to see how the actual variables come into play on gameday. In short, the stats do show how teams execute play to play from Football outsiders and PFF. However, execution is a zero sum game and how you executed on the last play has no effect on how you execute the next one. It simply states a propensity to be able to out execute the other team on the next play, but **** happens at every level and no more so than in the NFL

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mediator12 View Post
                            I see WHY they want to say this, because it is common sense that no one will re-break the records they just broke last year.

                            However, they fail to mention another very relevant analytical fact: Nothing varies year to year like defensive numbers! A fact that Football outsiders has always used in their preseason analysis. Of all of last years statistics, nothing is more variable than defensive DVOA and nothing is more susceptible to who teams actually play on offenses that are more resilient to variation.

                            SEA actually plays a few real offenses this year and the new rules will apply to their sticky methods in coverage. So, while the premise can be backed with numbers from last year, I am not using anything said in that article to speculate on what is going to happen this year.

                            As I have always said, using isolated football statistics removes 2 primary elements of NFL football. Game planning and Play calling. It also is extremely variable week to week which just goes to show you how talent is not as important as coaching and execution in the NFL. It also is a huge matchup game and while certain teams CAN be poor overall they can still matchup well with certain teams schemes and personnel.

                            There is no other Major sport on the planet that relies on Coaching More than the NFL. Stats just reduce the games to outcomes and fail to see how the actual variables come into play on gameday. In short, the stats do show how teams execute play to play from Football outsiders and PFF. However, execution is a zero sum game and how you executed on the last play has no effect on how you execute the next one. It simply states a propensity to be able to out execute the other team on the next play, but **** happens at every level and no more so than in the NFL
                            VERY nice point. One of the fascinating things about american professional football is that statistics are good at describing what happened in past seasons, but horrible at predicting what WILL happen in the future.

                            Great and imaginative coaching can defeat statistical trends.... Unless random bounces of the oblong sphere **** everything up.
                            Last edited by BowlenBall; 08-20-2014, 10:04 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mediator12 View Post
                              However, they fail to mention another very relevant analytical fact: Nothing varies year to year like defensive numbers!
                              From the article:
                              As a general rule, elite offenses are further from league average than great defenses, so offensive regression isn’t as likely as defensive regression. It helps, too, that research has shown offenses to be more consistent from year to year than defenses. All else being equal, we would expect the Broncos to be the more likely team to repeat last year’s brilliant performance.
                              (bolding mine)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X