PDA

View Full Version : average margin of defeat



Lonestar
05-19-2008, 12:35 PM
For the 2007 season, the average margin of defeat for an NFL team was 12.5 points. But what's really interesting to note is the contrast between the three losses by the Dallas Cowboys and the three by the Indianapolis Colts. When Dallas lost, they lost by an average of 15.3 points. In their three losses, the Colts only fell by a league-best 4.0 points per game. That said, don't forget that their record is the best among teams who actually lost a game, so New England was excluded from the list. Philadelphia, Arizona and Pittsburgh were next in line behind the Colts, averaging roughly seven points per loss. In addition to Dallas, the teams that took it on the chin the hardest when they lost were the Panthers, Bills and Broncos -- who all lost by an average of 16 to 19 points -- and the Lions



http://den.scout.com/a.z?s=101&p=2&c=754984&refid=400&CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=5

Ziggy
05-19-2008, 12:42 PM
Not surprising. When you can't run or stop the run, you're going to get blown out quite a bit. What do the Panthers, Bills, Lions and Broncos have in common? They were 4 of the weakest teams on the LOS on both sides of the ball last year. No surprises in the results.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 12:57 PM
Not surprising. When you can't run or stop the run, you're going to get blown out quite a bit. What do the Panthers, Bills, Lions and Broncos have in common? They were 4 of the weakest teams on the LOS on both sides of the ball last year. No surprises in the results.

Yes, and the players you cite in your sig are here to help to make sure that
doesn't happen again.

One thing we need to keep in mind: This team, going into the 2008 season,
bears little resemblence to last year's. It looks not only to be a better team,
but a dramatically better one, with the additions of not only the players you
mentioned but also in the return to health of Ekuban, Nalen, and Hamilton,
and the additions of Boss and Niko behind them and D.J.'s return to where
he plays the best. And, of course, Dumervil is coming back. (He was here
last year, but we do need to mention him.)

Of course, there was a dramatic turnover in some of the skill positions, too,
but we are talking about the trenches here.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
05-19-2008, 01:03 PM
The two blowouts against the Lions and Chargers probably skewed those numbers a bit.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 01:06 PM
The two blowouts against the Lions and Chargers probably skewed those numbers a bit.

True, but they do factor.

If a team loses three games in a season like that, there's something definitely wrong.

And don't forget Houston (much as I'd like to http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif ).

-----

Ziggy
05-19-2008, 01:06 PM
Yes, and the players you cite in your sig are here to help to make sure that
doesn't happen again.

One thing we need to keep in mind: This team, going into the 2008 season,
bears little resemblence to last year's. It looks not only to be a better team,
but a dramatically better one, with the additions of not only the players you
mentioned but also in the return to health of Ekuban, Nalen, and Hamilton,
and the additions of Boss and Niko behind them and D.J.'s return to where
he plays the best. And, of course, Dumervil is coming back. (He was here
last year, but we do need to mention him.)

Of course, there was a dramatic turnover in some of the skill positions, too,
but we are talking about the trenches here.

-----


Agreed. Dumervil has been added to my sig. Thanks for pointing that out Top.

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 01:08 PM
True, but they do factor.

If a team loses three games in a season like that, there's something definitely wrong.

And don't forget Houston (much as I'd like to http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif ).

-----

Don't forget the Indy game too - 18 point loss.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 01:14 PM
Don't forget the Indy game too - 18 point loss.

For those five games, that's an average losing margin of 25.6.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif Mama, all the sudden, I don't feel too well . . . I think I'll lie down for a while. :sick:

-----

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 01:16 PM
For those five games, that's an average losing margin of 25.6.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif Mama, all the sudden, I don't feel too well . . . I think I'll lie down for a while. :sick:

-----

Yeah - I'm not going to look at stats from last year again. I might need to head home sick.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 01:29 PM
Yeah - I'm not going to look at stats from last year again. I might need to head home sick.

ROTF at your avatar :lol:

-----

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 01:31 PM
ROTF at your avatar :lol:

-----

Hopefully it's not considered a personal attack...

:D

SBboundBRONCOS
05-19-2008, 01:49 PM
For those five games, that's an average losing margin of 25.6.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif Mama, all the sudden, I don't feel too well . . . I think I'll lie down for a while. :sick:

-----

and our avg winning was only about 10 points :eek:

SOCALORADO.
05-19-2008, 01:54 PM
and our avg winning was only about 10 points :eek:

D-line is going to be under a microscope all year.
Time for all those DEs and DTs to make or break DEN this year!
:defense:

SBboundBRONCOS
05-19-2008, 07:39 PM
D-line is going to be under a microscope all year.
Time for all those DEs and DTs to make or break DEN this year!
:defense:

it so true, but i have a feeling shanahan is gonna have his usual short amount of patience and cut some people that are not working out even thought they are good players, thats what scares me

Bronco9798
05-19-2008, 07:42 PM
it so true, but i have a feeling shanahan is gonna have his usual short amount of patience and cut some people that are not working out even thought they are good players, thats what scares me

Travis Henry rings a bell...

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 07:47 PM
The two blowouts against the Lions and Chargers probably skewed those numbers a bit.

think it was three blowouts by them.

omac
05-19-2008, 10:46 PM
Thank you very much, Jim Bates! :beer:

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 10:48 PM
Thank you very much, Jim Bates! :beer:

I think it goes much deeper than Jim bates.. although some of the personnel changes did not help on D..

Getting just 3 points in a couple of those games, surely is not all the defenses fault..

omac
05-19-2008, 11:10 PM
I think it goes much deeper than Jim bates.. although some of the personnel changes did not help on D..

Getting just 3 points in a couple of those games, surely is not all the defenses fault..

Neither does watching your opponents march all over your defense easily, and not giving your offense any sense of rythm while waiting on the bench.

Fact of the matter is, despite the injuries to our RBs, WRs, and OL, as well as having very poor starting field possition, our offense still ranked 9th in rushing, 13th in passing, and 21st in scoring, a very far cry from our defense, which was 30th against the rush and 28th in points allowed.

Last season's woes were from a lot of factors, but the one with easily the biggest impact was the inability to stop the run.

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 11:16 PM
Neither does watching your opponents march all over your defense easily, and not giving your offense any sense of rythm while waiting on the bench.

Fact of the matter is, despite the injuries to our RBs, WRs, and OL, as well as having very poor starting field possition, our offense still ranked 9th in rushing, 13th in passing, and 21st in scoring, a very far cry from our defense, which was 30th against the rush[b] and [b]28th in points allowed[b].

Last season's woes were from a lot of factors, but the one with [b]easily the biggest impact was the inability to stop the run.

yep but when those yards are between the 20's it really does not matter much either..

When our D was bad it was really BAD. Our offense was never great last year had a couple of decent games against KC, beyond that the injuries killed the O all year..

Poor field position was more a product of really good punters across the LOS, and poor judgment of KO guys bringing the ball out or better said NO bringing the ball out from the redzone..

Without Marshall and Elam last year there would have been a lot more suicides in DEN. They really saved the offenses ass last year..

omac
05-19-2008, 11:41 PM
yep but when those yards are between the 20's it really does not matter much either..

When our D was bad it was really BAD. Our offense was never great last year had a couple of decent games against KC, beyond that the injuries killed the O all year..

Poor field position was more a product of really good punters across the LOS, and poor judgment of KO guys bringing the ball out or better said NO bringing the ball out from the redzone..

Without Marshall and Elam last year there would have been a lot more suicides in DEN. They really saved the offenses ass last year..

I don't have the stats, but sometimes, a poor defense also allows the opposing team enough yardage to pin a punt pretty near the endzone, which would contribute to the poor starting field possition.

Elam played solid, but he was not flawless. In some of those close games, I think Buffalo or (and?) Oakland, he missed some very makeable ones in the 40 range during the game, so hypothetically, those games shouldn't have needed end-game winning FGs.

Brandon had a rocky start, making some timing mistakes in his routes and such, but he's developed during the season into a excellent #1 WR. Lost in all of this, because of his injury and later press conferences is that Javon started the season real well before the injury, even sacrificing his body going into the middle of the defense to make a catch in the game winning drive against Buffalo. He is definitely a player.

Besides Brandon Marshall and Elam, others have contributed greatly, like Stokley, Scheffler, Young, Hall, and ofcourse, Cutler. People remember Graham's drop, but they forget his key catches.

And despite their inexperience, the makeshift OL did give their best effort, and to their credit wasn't the worst in the NFL.

TXBRONC
05-19-2008, 11:48 PM
yep but when those yards are between the 20's it really does not matter much either..

When our D was bad it was really BAD. Our offense was never great last year had a couple of decent games against KC, beyond that the injuries killed the O all year..

Poor field position was more a product of really good punters across the LOS, and poor judgment of KO guys bringing the ball out or better said NO bringing the ball out from the redzone..

Without Marshall and Elam last year there would have been a lot more suicides in DEN. They really saved the offenses ass last year..


It's not like we face all pro punter every week. Our defense had big hand in help the oppositions punter keep us pinned deep in our own end of the field.

omac
05-20-2008, 12:17 AM
yep but when those yards are between the 20's it really does not matter much either..

One more thing to add regarding this comment. Starting field position is a big factor in the likelihood of scoring TDs; a team that has to consistently make up more yardage usually doesn't score as much. I read an old article a few weeks ago that equated starting field position with winning, and it gave a snapshot of the NFL games of that week, and showed that a huge majority of the winning teams (almost all) had better starting field position than their opponents.

Here's the article I found before, plus another one I just googled now ...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=A8445529E74E3F7A59808B417849B52B? id=09000d5d80397c13&template=without-video&confirm=true

http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/09/importance-of-field-position.html

SBboundBRONCOS
05-20-2008, 12:50 AM
It's not like we face all pro punter every week. Our defense had big hand in help the oppositions punter keep us pinned deep in our own end of the field.

true but from what i can remember we just seemed to have terrible luck when it came to STs, it seemed everything we did was wrong and the everything the opposing team did was spectacular.