Broncos Busted

[MOtorboat]

Bill Barnwell of Grantland on the Broncos.

Very Bearish.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8254748/peyton-manning-enough-make-denver-contender

[SoCalImport]

"The big gap between their Pythagorean expectation and their actual win total mostly came down to the stunning string of Tebow-led heroics after their Week 6 bye. Last year, Denver played 11 games that were decided by a touchdown or less and won seven of them. "

absolute tripe. Talk about picking one part of a story to make your entire argument. never mind the fact that Tebow was just as responsible for our loses than he was for our wins. I mean he was only the QB. :rolleyes:

[MOtorboat]

"The big gap between their Pythagorean expectation and their actual win total mostly came down to the stunning string of Tebow-led heroics after their Week 6 bye. Last year, Denver played 11 games that were decided by a touchdown or less and won seven of them. "

absolute tripe. Talk about picking one part of a story to make your entire argument. never mind the fact that Tebow was just as responsible for our loses than he was for our wins. I mean he was only the QB. :rolleyes:

I think you need to look past the Tebow mention to what he's actually saying. And that has to do with the Pythagorean Equation that Bill James invented to show the number of wins a baseball team should have had based on the runs scored vs. runs given up.

During that six game stretch Denver outscored opponents 136 to 102. In the remaining other 10 games, Denver was outscored 288 to 173. So the theory states that if you get outscored 390 to 309 (81 point differential) you're likely to only win five or six games, rather than eight.

Which, as most of us have suspected, means the wins were more of an anomaly than anything else, much like the 6-0 start with Orton.

I disagree with the article's premise, however, that you can equate that to this year, because of the change at Quarterback and maturation of Von Miller and improvements to the secondary.

I also completelys disagree that this is the worst wide receiver group Manning has ever had.

[topscribe]

Yes, you have the precipitous upgrade at QB, the maturing of Von, improvements
in the secondary, a better player in Mays at MLB, the return of Ty Warren and
Justus Bannan in the DL, the addition of Wolfe to the pass rush, the maturing
of DT and Decker and addition of Caldwell and Stokley, a healthier and faster
McGahee, complemented by a strong RB stable with Hillman and a healthy
Moreno.

Those who project this year's production and record based on last year's for the
Broncos don't have a clue and should not be writing anything about them, IMO . . .
.

[SoCalImport]

I think you need to look past the Tebow mention to what he's actually saying. And that has to do with the Pythagorean Equation that Bill James invented to show the number of wins a baseball team should have had based on the runs scored vs. runs given up.



I get that. I suppose that I have to remember that articles aren't intended to be read only by fans of the team under scrutiny. I'm sure that almost no one that was paying attention to our season believes that we were anything but lucky to be 8-8 and not 5-11 or worse

[Nomad]

Wow! People are just infatuated with Timmy T........que in Rod Stewart:lol:

Well said, top!

[Northman]

He lost me when saying our division is weak and then calling the Niners great in the same breath. While the Niners were good last year they have one of the weakest divisions in football.

[Chef Zambini]

I dont know alot of mathamaticians that play football.
Pythagorius was all about geometyr, this is simple math, addition and subtraction! we subtracted tebow
we subtracted tuten' we subtracted GOODMAN! this, was addition by subtraction !
now add in the additions mentioned by toip scribe, and I think this auther needes to sharpen his pencil and go back to the blackboard !

[Chef Zambini]

I get that. I suppose that I have to remember that articles aren't intended to be read only by fans of the team under scrutiny. I'm sure that almost no one that was paying attention to our season believes that we were anything but lucky to be 8-8 and not 5-11 or worsethats ecactly what we were... LUCKY !
I'll ride with JE in the vehicle that runs on skill, experience and talent.

and WTYF has reggie white and joe montana got to do with this years broncos?
I know that with chuck K over there at grantland , they probably smoke some good shinola, but give me a break on these 'theories', thanks !

[Ravage!!!]

Yes, you have the precipitous upgrade at QB, the maturing of Von, improvements
in the secondary, a better player in Mays at MLB, the return of Ty Warren and
Justus Bannan in the DL, the addition of Wolfe to the pass rush, the maturing
of DT and Decker and addition of Caldwell and Stokley, a healthier and faster
McGahee, complemented by a strong RB stable with Hillman and a healthy
Moreno.

Those who project this year's production and record based on last year's for the
Broncos don't have a clue and should not be writing anything about them, IMO . . .
.

Not to mention a completely different offensive system and defensive coordinator. All good points :salute:

[MOtorboat]

thats ecactly what we were... LUCKY !
I'll ride with JE in the vehicle that runs on skill, experience and talent.

and WTYF has reggie white and joe montana got to do with this years broncos?
I know that with chuck K over there at grantland , they probably smoke some good shinola, but give me a break on these 'theories', thanks !

If you can't see the parallels from Montana to Manning, well...

[Ravage!!!]

He lost me when saying our division is weak and then calling the Niners great in the same breath. While the Niners were good last year they have one of the weakest divisions in football.

That, and they just had a great year. The season before last, no one was calling them a 'great' team. Now, all of a sudden, people think they are favorites for the Super Bowl in the NFC. I think the fall back down to earth this season, and land somewhere between last year, and the year before. I don't think they are as good, nor do I think the coach is that good. We won't be talking about the 49ers at the end of the year.

[Simple Jaded]

Wtf is a Pythagorean Expectation? Shut the F up and fix my CPU Sheldon.......

[MOtorboat]

That, and they just had a great year. The season before last, no one was calling them a 'great' team. Now, all of a sudden, people think they are favorites for the Super Bowl in the NFC. I think the fall back down to earth this season, and land somewhere between last year, and the year before. I don't think they are as good, nor do I think the coach is that good. We won't be talking about the 49ers at the end of the year.

Remember, Barnwell is looking at it with a statistical viewpoint.

I know a lot of football fans hate metrics (I know you, rav, are not to fond of stats in general), but people shunned James in baseball for years and he turned out to be right.

In terms of San Francisco, using that formula, they were right at the number created by the projection, which was 12.3, and they won 13.

Denver, won 8 and, according to the formula, should have won 5.8

[underrated29]

Wasn't elway as old as manning is now when he won his bowl with us?


I actually stopped reading after he said injury riddled steelers. I love how they want to focus on that as an excuse when we had an equal number of players out or gimpy for that game too.

[MOtorboat]

Here's Schatz initial column from 1993 about the formula.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/pythagoras-gridiron

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Dang MO - When I read the title of the thread I thought - GREAT, which Broncos are in trouble now :tsk:

[MOtorboat]

Dang MO - When I read the title of the thread I thought - GREAT, which Broncos are in trouble now :tsk:

Sorry about that. That was the headline on Grantland.

[nevcraw]

"The big gap between their Pythagorean expectation and their actual win total mostly came down to the stunning string of Tebow-led heroics after their Week 6 bye. Last year, Denver played 11 games that were decided by a touchdown or less and won seven of them. "

absolute tripe. Talk about picking one part of a story to make your entire argument. never mind the fact that Tebow was just as responsible for our loses than he was for our wins. I mean he was only the QB. :rolleyes:
He was not for the first 5 games... remember?? 1-4 record under KO? don't ket the truth stand in the way of a good ol' tebow bashing.. Redic.

[MOtorboat]

He was not for the first 5 games... remember?? 1-4 record under KO? don't ket the truth stand in the way of a good ol' tebow bashing.. Redic.

Reading comp helps.

SoCal wasn't saying he was the ONLY quarterback, he was saying he was ONLY the QB...big difference.

Nice try, though.

[topscribe]

He was not for the first 5 games... remember?? 1-4 record under KO? don't ket the truth stand in the way of a good ol' tebow bashing.. Redic.
Nothing like perpetuating the Orton/Tebow debate, although both are long gone . . . :rolleyes:
.

[nevcraw]

did I do that... me thinks not.. I just reminded him that half the losses were on someone else's watch... oh and while he was playing the team won games too -- big difference.. I've tried many times to remind people that Tebow is New York but as a collective group no one wants to let it go.. so if you can't beat em' join em', I say....
good to know the love still burns bright for your boy KO Top! ;-)

[MOtorboat]

did I do that... me thinks not.. I just reminded him that half the losses were on someone else's watch... oh and while he was playing the team won games too -- big difference.. I've tried many times to remind people that Tebow is New York but as a collective group no one wants to let it go.. so if you can't beat em' join em', I say....
good to know the love still burns bright for your boy KO Top! ;-)

Thoughts on the statistical analysis the article is based on?

[topscribe]

did I do that... me thinks not.. I just reminded him that half the losses were on someone else's watch... oh and while he was playing the team won games too -- big difference.. I've tried many times to remind people that Tebow is New York but as a collective group no one wants to let it go.. so if you can't beat em' join em', I say....
good to know the love still burns bright for your boy KO Top! ;-)
Yup, I still like KO. But you haven't seen much of anything about him from me lately on this board, have you?



Thoughts on the statistical analysis the article is based on?

Good suggestion. :focus:
.

[pnbronco]

Dang MO - When I read the title of the thread I thought - GREAT, which Broncos are in trouble now :tsk:

Me too Carol.....must be a Mom thing.....:lol:

Also great post Top. I would also like to mention that DT had all his injuries last year as well including the broken finger after the other stuff was healing.

[G_Money]

Pythag is a very simple formula. If you win a lot of close games and get blown out a couple of times it screws up the formula big-time. That's exactly what happened last year. Pythag works better over a longer sample, which is why it's fine for baseball. One 45-10 game in football blows it up.

Here's what the guy is saying:

1) Broncos were lucky last year and should not have won 8 games.
My response: agreed that it was a really untrustworthy and probably unrepeatable way to do it, which is why we traded Tebow and are doing it a different way this year.

2) Peyton has also "outperformed Pythag" with his teams consistently, so maybe he can keep that up...except he won't based on aging patterns and his 2010 decline year.
My response: straw-man. Nobody needs him to outperform it because Pythag is a simple formula, runs scored vs. runs against. If we had the same defensive performance and better offense we would naturally win more games and meet our Pythag. Replacing Tebow with an average or above-average QB who can score more points would then help the Pythag without needing 2005 Peyton.

3) Peyton's new teammates will not mesh well with his abilities, thus limiting their ability to win. Also, his new teammates suck, and are "guys who would be situational players on good teams."
My response: Peyton did not win a title with the great Edge and won one with the mediocre Addai. Didn't Peyton prove that all his Indy teammates were basically over-rated just by playing with him? They were ATROCIOUS without him. These Broncos went to the playoffs and won a game with a QB that half of his own team's fans would describe as a fullback with ball-throwing responsibilities - all "luckily" according to the math guy - and have improved their talent and depth since last season. I don't see why these Broncos are worse than the guys Manning would have played with in 2011 if he was healthy. IMO, they're better.

4) The schedule will kill them. After all, it's much harder than last year's.
my answer: we had the 3rd hardest schedule last year (based on 2010's records). And then the year played out and it turned out not to be as hard, because the 2011 teams weren't as good as expected. Anybody who had Indy on the 2011 schedule certainly found it a much easier go, since an injury turned the entire Indy franchise inside-out. Counting out the Broncos because of what appears to be a tough schedule seems silly, especially when nobody has film on how exactly the Broncos O is gonna work or whether their Del Rio D will be different. You might as well throw out all of last year's tape on how we used personnel - it'll be worthless.

So while the math guy is saying we could be 2-5 after the first 7, it's actually more likely that we'll be a really tough stop the first 4-6 weeks while teams figure out our tendencies and weaknesses. Which he should have figured out and could actually do calculations to determine, but it would undermine his stated argument.

If you'd like to know how worthless Pythag arguments are for determining the future, I can point you at some good baseball blogs. But it's a nice formula for telling you whether or not you got "lucky" in the previous year, not for describing how you'll do in the future, especially with a 30% change in personnel, a new offense and defensive coordinators, and all the rest of the uncertainty that goes into an NFL season.

IMO, the math guy is over-reaching.

~G

[NightTerror218]

horrible article IMO

[FanInAZ]

4) The schedule will kill them. After all, it's much harder than last year's.
my answer: we had the 3rd hardest schedule last year (based on 2010's records). And then the year played out and it turned out not to be as hard, because the 2011 teams weren't as good as expected. Anybody who had Indy on the 2011 schedule certainly found it a much easier go, since an injury turned the entire Indy franchise inside-out. Counting out the Broncos because of what appears to be a tough schedule seems silly, especially when nobody has film on how exactly the Broncos O is gonna work or whether their Del Rio D will be different. You might as well throw out all of last year's tape on how we used personnel - it'll be worthless.

Here what I recall was the pre-season consensus views of how 2011 would play out:

Colts: Would these perennial SB contenders be able to maintain their AFCS supremacy by holding of the Texans? Even if the Texans did find a way to beat them out for the division crown, the idea that wouldn't still make the play-offs as a wild card team was laughable.

Jets: Made it to the AFCCG during the previous seasons. Would they be able to take it to the next step by toppling the Patriots as the AFCE Champs & reach the SB?

Chargers: Had a down year in 2010 due to off field issues. Certainly the Chargers had enough talent to have a 10-12 win season.

Eagles: Signed "The Dream Team" of DBs. With the "New & Improved Vick" at QB, you could certainly pencil them in as the NFCE Champs. SB was a definite possibly.

Lions: Going from 6-10 to 10-6 in just one season? Not unprecedented, but not likely either.

49ers: These guy might come close to reaching the SB? :laugh: :lol: :rofl: :hahaha: :der: :pound:

[Cugel]

This article is incredibly stupid for one simple reason. The author keeps talking about how the Broncos got lucky last year. They exceeded expectations and had a lucky streak with Tebow.

Well, last year Elway & Fox inherited a 4-12 team that was the 2nd worst in the NFL. They were almost TOTALLY devoid of talent at almost EVERY position outside of RDE where Dumervil was the former NFL sack leader and LT where Clady was a pro-bowler.

The 2009 draft was a total and complete failure leaving the team without meaningful help.

IT WAS A REBUILDING YEAR. Yes, the Broncos should have won 5 or 6 games with Tebow at QB and they won 8 by virtue of Tebow running around and making plays against teams that hadn't figured out how to defend against his quirky offense yet -- before the Patriots showed the world how to crush him in the playoffs.

But, THIS year is a vastly different story. The 2011 and 2012 drafts were handled by normal, reasonably talented people, and NOT Josh McDaniels. The Broncos as of today seem to have found starting caliber players in Wolfe, Miller, Moore, and Carter.

They signed great kicker and punters. They got GOOD defensive coaches in place and emphasized rebuilding the D-line and stocking talent in the secondary.

They signed a bunch of useful FAs. None of them are All-Pros but none of them are worthless like Joseph Addai whom this idiot wants re-signed.

Terry Porter has been injured? Well, he's not injured now, and if he's injured this season then there will be Florence or Chris Harris to replace him.

I could go on and on, but even outside of Manning this year's team bears little resemblance to the team that took the field in 2011. They are much deeper at almost every position, and have lost only ONE significant starter from last season -- Bunkley. And it doesn't look like they will miss him at all.

Then there's Manning. He might have gone downhill in 2010. But, he went 9-7 with an aging Colts team that then collapsed in his absence and won only 2 games in 2011 and is now being totally rebuilt from scratch. It's similar to the collapse of the Broncos in 1999 after losing Elway, T.D. and Steve Atwater.

Perhaps Manning is too old and will decline in skill. But it doesn't look like it here on the ground. And comparing him to Kurt Warner? Kurt Warner played 3 seasons in Arizona and took a mediocre Cardinals team to the SB and nearly won. And Warner was coming off serious injury too.

I'll take that kind of "decline" any day.

All in all, the Broncos might have a disappointing year, but right now that's not the way to bet. This is easily the most talented Broncos team since the 1998.

[ShaneFalco]

seriously op, just let tebow go...

[MOtorboat]

seriously op, just let tebow go...

Huh?

[Mike]

Who is this and why should I care?

[MOtorboat]

Who is this and why should I care?

Bill Barnwell is a Football Outsiders guy who recently moved to Grantland. But past that, it's a bearish look, so I didn't expect many here to like the article (typically how that goes).

[Cugel]

Bill Barnwell is a Football Outsiders guy who recently moved to Grantland. But past that, it's a bearish look, so I didn't expect many here to like the article (typically how that goes).

It's NOT a question of "liking" the article or not. If this same guy had come out last year and said the Broncos would be lucky to win 6 games with Tebow at QB and very little talent around him, I would have agreed.

I consider myself a REALIST, not a guy who wears Orange Colored Glasses and shouts "Whoo! Hoo! Broncos are going to the SB!!!!!" all day.

I don't think the Broncos are going to win the SB this season. It's too soon and they are still a few impact players short.

But the arguments this idiot made simply don't hold up under scrutiny.

Analytically this team is the most talented since the 1998 SB team. Do they compare with that team? No way in Hell! But, which Broncos team since compares?

Will they go 13-3 and get to the AFC Championship game like Plummer did in 2005? Who knows? Probably not given the murderous schedule.

But, outside of Al Wilson, who on the 2005 Broncos would you trade for any player on this Broncos team? (A younger Champ Bailey perhaps). Aside from that it's hard to think of too many.

Is Courtney Brown in his last year probably better than Jason Hunter or Robert Ayers at LDE? Probably, but Brown's knees were about to give out and he had no future.

And wouldn't you rather have Wolfe than Gerrard Warren?

Rod Smith too was better than any WR on today's roster, but he was at the end of his career and Thomas and Decker are just getting started. Who would want Ashlie Lelie over either Decker or Thomas? And wouldn't you prefer Bubba Caldwell over Darius Watts?

D.J. Williams is probably no worse than he was, and Von Miller is certainly better than Ian Gold.

Tom Nalen was better than JD Walton hands down, which might make a difference, but George Foster stunk at RT and Orlando Franklin doesn't.

Overall, this is a good young team that is poised to make a run in the playoffs the next few seasons and could win a SB with a few more key additions to the roster. This is a team that is getting better as key young players mature, not an aging team trying for one last hurrah before walking off into the sunset like the 2005 team.

And this is the FIRST time any Broncos fan could realistically say that since 1998.

(There was never a real chance of winning the SB with Griese, Plummer, Cutler -- given the team around him, Orton, or Tebow. Now there is).

[Thnikkaman]

I'm just going to throw out there that statistics like these aren't as heavily weighted in Football as it is in Baseball since a play in baseball is more reliant on an individual contributor. Trying to apply the pythag equation to the NFL is an interesting exercise, but until we've seen a correlation over a few seasons worth of data (in fact, you should be able to take the last 5 seasons and see how it stacks up), I'm not going to give it much thought.

I do believe that this team is capable of the playoffs again. I'm not going to write them in as the AFC champions.

[TXBRONC]

I think you need to look past the Tebow mention to what he's actually saying. And that has to do with the Pythagorean Equation that Bill James invented to show the number of wins a baseball team should have had based on the runs scored vs. runs given up.

During that six game stretch Denver outscored opponents 136 to 102. In the remaining other 10 games, Denver was outscored 288 to 173. So the theory states that if you get outscored 390 to 309 (81 point differential) you're likely to only win five or six games, rather than eight.

Which, as most of us have suspected, means the wins were more of an anomaly than anything else, much like the 6-0 start with Orton.

I disagree with the article's premise, however, that you can equate that to this year, because of the change at Quarterback and maturation of Von Miller and improvements to the secondary.

I also completelys disagree that this is the worst wide receiver group Manning has ever had.

Anyone who tries to use a mathematical formula to tell you how a team will do is full of shit to begin with. He admits for fourteen years Manning and Colts disproved his theory. It's lacks credibility.

[MOtorboat]

I'm just going to throw out there that statistics like these aren't as heavily weighted in Football as it is in Baseball since a play in baseball is more reliant on an individual contributor. Trying to apply the pythag equation to the NFL is an interesting exercise, but until we've seen a correlation over a few seasons worth of data (in fact, you should be able to take the last 5 seasons and see how it stacks up), I'm not going to give it much thought.

I do believe that this team is capable of the playoffs again. I'm not going to write them in as the AFC champions.

I think Barnwell and FO have been doing it since 2003.

[TXBRONC]

Bill Barnwell is a Football Outsiders guy who recently moved to Grantland. But past that, it's a bearish look, so I didn't expect many here to like the article (typically how that goes).

Admitting he was wrong for fourteen years about Manning would have nothing whatsoever to do skepticism of this guy? I don't think so.

[MOtorboat]

Admitting he was wrong for fourteen years about Manning would have nothing whatsoever to do skepticism of this guy? I don't think so.

One team doesn't disprove an entire theory, especially when most teams line up with the theory.

Manning bucking a clear trend is an anomaly to the rule (because there's always that). Maybe that continues with Manning in Denver.

[CoachChaz]

The flipside to Bramwell...read his article about the 49ers. Makes complete sense.

[Thnikkaman]

I think Barnwell and FO have been doing it since 2003.

I see that Football Outsiders has been doing it since 2003, and they are adjusting their formula to make it more accurate. However, how accurate are previous years Pythag standings in predicting next year's standings? Especially with the amount of turnover and tweaking done during the off-season for an NFL team.

I would argue that a teams Pythag wins is useful in determining chances in the playoffs, but not so much on predicting next year's schedule unless that team is virtually untouched during the off-season.

[MOtorboat]

I would completely agree, Thnikk.

I just think to dismiss it because it's statistical is naive.

[Thnikkaman]

I would completely agree, Thnikk.

I just think to dismiss it because it's statistical is naive.

I agree; and I hope my first post wasn't taken as being a dismissal.

[Mike]

Bill Barnwell is a Football Outsiders guy who recently moved to Grantland. But past that, it's a bearish look, so I didn't expect many here to like the article (typically how that goes).

Thanks. I don't care that someone is negative or critical...just wondered why his opinion is one to pay attention to.

[G_Money]

I see that Football Outsiders has been doing it since 2003, and they are adjusting their formula to make it more accurate. However, how accurate are previous years Pythag standings in predicting next year's standings? Especially with the amount of turnover and tweaking done during the off-season for an NFL team.

I would argue that a teams Pythag wins is useful in determining chances in the playoffs, but not so much on predicting next year's schedule unless that team is virtually untouched during the off-season.

This. Pythag is not a predictive stat, it's a reflective stat. If I told you the Broncos were gonna score 309 and give up 390, you can plug it into your formula and tell me how they'll do. Unfortunately, you can't get those results before the season's been played. What we did last year, with last year's offense, has basically zero relevance to this year's offense.

I guess I just hate it when people tell me, "the math doesn't support a good season for your team" when the math is being used for purposes it can't possibly accomplish. I've been having these arguments on baseball blogs for years, and unfortunately now I'm gonna get to have them about football too.

The arguments he presented are poor. Who cares what last year's Pythag results were when the offense will be different? Who cares how other QBs adjusted to their new offenses when Peyton CALLS HIS OWN PLAYS from his own playbook?

No pass catching RBs? Colts RBs caught 67 of 402 passes in 2009, or 17%. Broncos RBs in 2011 caught 55 of 217 passes, or 26%. The Broncos backs aren't gonna be asked to do anything they're not capable of doing.

Do I think the QB/C relationship is gonna be a big key? Sure. Do I think the wide receivers will need to step up their games? You bet. But any guy who can make a world-class offense out of Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie can probably get by with what we've got, and he'll have a better running game than he's had in years.

Bill assumes our secondary will be bad, for no apparent reason. He states that our talent on D is terrible, as if the Colts ran out there with incredible talent and depth. They had pass-rushers, that's it. You know what we have? Pass rushers. Oh, and the greatest CB of all time, as well as several other vets who know their job is to hold other teams to field goals while we score TDs.

Will it work? I dunno. But the "proofs" he uses, including the schedule, are not proofs. It's not an investigation of the team, it's a hit piece meant to draw page views. Do whatcha gotta do as an author to get your work seen, but don't expect me to take your "analysis" any more seriously than some Kizla drivel.

~G

[G_Money]

I would completely agree, Thnikk.

I just think to dismiss it because it's statistical is naive.

"Statistical" is not synonymous with "accurate." Statistics lie. He says we're screwed because we have a hard schedule this year. Well we had just as hard a schedule last year and did fine with less talent. How did that happen? He says "anomaly." Except that our schedule didn't turn out to be as hard as it was thought to be.

What are the odds that our seemingly-hard schedule now will be that hard once we're done with it? How many "toughest" schedules actually turned out to be the toughest, year to year? I mean, what odds is he giving us that this schedule is the knee-breaker he claims it will be? Not mentioned. Our tough schedule last year? Not mentioned.

I understand the stats. I am a baseball fanatic, and can break down WAR and WPA and RC/27 for you just fine, but HOW you use stats is important. A stat can say almost anything you want, and if it doesn't give you the result you're looking for just bury that stat and get a different one that supports your view.

There's nothing wrong with Pythag, but you can't use it how he's using it, to get the conclusion he tries to draw from it in the first several paragraphs. He appears to believe we'll be a better team but get less lucky, and with a harder schedule and mentally weak team we'll fall apart after an early losing streak (that's basically how he puts it).

Except none of the math in the article supports that premise, it's just guesswork on his part. "Statistical analysis" sounds great, and way better than "pulling guesses out of my ass and putting numbers on a page to make you think it's science." But what he did is the latter.

And it doesn't impress me.

~G

[TXBRONC]

One team doesn't disprove an entire theory, especially when most teams line up with the theory.

Manning bucking a clear trend is an anomaly to the rule (because there's always that). Maybe that continues with Manning in Denver.

Well yes it doesn't prove it for fourteen straight years. It was anomaly for fourteen straight. There is no formula that can account for every variable most especially the human variable. It wasn't rocket science to figure out that Colts were more than likely in deep shit if Manning didn't play.

If this formula is that great of a tool what was the win percentage predictions for the Chargers, the Raiders, and Chiefs?

[MOtorboat]

Well yes it doesn't prove it for fourteen straight years. It was anomaly for fourteen straight. There is no formula that can account for every variable most especially the human variable. It wasn't rocket science to figure out that Colts were more than likely in deep shit if Manning didn't play.

If this formula is that great of a tool what was the win percentage predictions for the Chargers, the Raiders, and Chiefs?

The formula is almost dead on for nearly every team last year, except the Broncos, and I believe the Raiders and Packers.

[Thnikkaman]

The formula is almost dead on for nearly every team last year, except the Broncos, and I believe the Raiders and Packers.

To back you up, the formula is currently 91% accurate since '03. That being said, it's a historical stat, not a predictive stat. It's used to measure how a team should be doing based on point differential, not how a team is going to do.

[MOtorboat]

To back you up, the formula is currently 91% accurate since '03. That being said, it's a historical stat, not a predictive stat. It's used to measure how a team should be doing based on point differential, not how a team is going to do.

Maybe I'm confusing the articles I read yesterday, but didn't he also go into how he believes it could be applied to the next season, and the success they've had doing that? That may have been in the 2003 article from FO that I also posted.

[Mike]

So I read the article and am just sort of meh.

Denver's defense was good enough to allow a pretty bad QB just enough room to do his thing. A good QB and the Broncos don't piss away 3.25 quarters of football...which is essentially what the Broncos did every win. That defense hasn't gotten any worse in the offseason, though the case can be made that they have made themselves better. We will see. IMO, put even a moderately-talented QB in and Denver closes that point differential gap considerably. You can question parts of Manning's game all you want, he can score, he can read and disect defenses, he can sustain drives, and he can do all of it in more than .75 of the 4th quarter.

I just don't think you can look at last year and get an indicator of this year. Denver wasn't a great team offensively because of the inadequacy at QB and questionable OL and WR play. I think both will get better with a more intelligent/capable QB. I also think that Manning will sustain drives and put points up which will help the defense...which is already pretty solid.

While I have reservations about the team, they are certainly not the ones this guy made.

[Thnikkaman]

Maybe I'm confusing the articles I read yesterday, but didn't he also go into how he believes it could be applied to the next season, and the success they've had doing that? That may have been in the 2003 article from FO that I also posted.

I'll have to re-read the article. Theoretically you could do something like that if it was combined with an NFL WAR stat since then you could apply some sort of metric to determine how the addition and subtraction of players on a team could effect next year's schedule. So for instance if Manning had a WAR of something like a 5.0 in his previous season, and Tebow had a WAR of -1.5, than based on last years Pythag the Broncos would expect another 8-8 season just based on those two players.

[G_Money]

When swapping QBs, there's no metric I would trust to figure out what's going on. The QB position affects so much about offensive performance. You CAN use versions of Pythag to guesstimate offensive performance going forward, but basically what you look for is regression to the mean. If the Packers go 15-1 but their Pythag says they should have been 12-4, then treat them in your win predictions like their starting point from last season was 12-4. Guesstimates based on Pythag Wins are more accurate than guesses based on actual wins - it does have some value there. So you should guess between 11-5 and 13-3 for the Pack, because most teams vary around a win either way until their crash year, assuming coaching and QB stability.

All Pythag tells you is "if you keep about the same ratio you had last year, you'll have about the same results. If you got lucky last year, don't expect to get lucky again." It's not rocket science, and if I asked you to guess how teams would do this year you'd come as close as Pythag figures, because Pythag is only a guess. A 9-7 team last year that stays healthy should be between 8-8 and 10-6. Place your bets now. Do that guessing game, come within ANOTHER game of being right, and this guy calls that "accuracy." It works in general, over large numbers, but on our specific team a Pythag guess is less than useless because the variables that went into our 2011 numbers are vastly different in 2012.

~G

[Chef Zambini]

This article is incredibly stupid for one simple reason. The author keeps talking about how the Broncos got lucky last year. They exceeded expectations and had a lucky streak with Tebow.

Well, last year Elway & Fox inherited a 4-12 team that was the 2nd worst in the NFL. They were almost TOTALLY devoid of talent at almost EVERY position outside of RDE where Dumervil was the former NFL sack leader and LT where Clady was a pro-bowler.

The 2009 draft was a total and complete failure leaving the team without meaningful help.

IT WAS A REBUILDING YEAR. Yes, the Broncos should have won 5 or 6 games with Tebow at QB and they won 8 by virtue of Tebow running around and making plays against teams that hadn't figured out how to defend against his quirky offense yet -- before the Patriots showed the world how to crush him in the playoffs.

But, THIS year is a vastly different story. The 2011 and 2012 drafts were handled by normal, reasonably talented people, and NOT Josh McDaniels. The Broncos as of today seem to have found starting caliber players in Wolfe, Miller, Moore, and Carter.

They signed great kicker and punters. They got GOOD defensive coaches in place and emphasized rebuilding the D-line and stocking talent in the secondary.

They signed a bunch of useful FAs. None of them are All-Pros but none of them are worthless like Joseph Addai whom this idiot wants re-signed.

Terry Porter has been injured? Well, he's not injured now, and if he's injured this season then there will be Florence or Chris Harris to replace him.

I could go on and on, but even outside of Manning this year's team bears little resemblance to the team that took the field in 2011. They are much deeper at almost every position, and have lost only ONE significant starter from last season -- Bunkley. And it doesn't look like they will miss him at all.

Then there's Manning. He might have gone downhill in 2010. But, he went 9-7 with an aging Colts team that then collapsed in his absence and won only 2 games in 2011 and is now being totally rebuilt from scratch. It's similar to the collapse of the Broncos in 1999 after losing Elway, T.D. and Steve Atwater.

Perhaps Manning is too old and will decline in skill. But it doesn't look like it here on the ground. And comparing him to Kurt Warner? Kurt Warner played 3 seasons in Arizona and took a mediocre Cardinals team to the SB and nearly won. And Warner was coming off serious injury too.

I'll take that kind of "decline" any day.

All in all, the Broncos might have a disappointing year, but right now that's not the way to bet. This is easily the most talented Broncos team since the 1998.your post is a thousand times more rational and realistic than the tripe offered by the grantland writer!
sorry, but what reggie white and montana did after leaving their original teams has NOTHING to do with what manning will do in denver, NOTHING!
draw all the paralelles you want, its like comparing abe lincon to JFK, an amusing execrise, but it did NOT predict the assasination of JFK!
I am not basing my expectations on coincidence!
talent, skill, desire and coaching, thats the folks that ride on my bus of wishful thinking, not some bullshit crap named after an anccient mathematician who never saw a football game and only had a sense for triangles!
maybe you can apply his concepts to basketball aand defense, but spare me this worthless crap as it relates to football !

[Chef Zambini]

a squared plus B squared equals c squared, thanks Pags, that genius...
now how did your fantasy football team do last year?
thats what I thought.
how much sugar do you guys pour on this shinola before you swallow it?

[MOtorboat]

a squared plus B squared equals c squared, thanks Pags, that genius...
now how did your fantasy football team do last year?
thats what I thought.
how much sugar do you guys pour on this shinola before you swallow it?

A lot less sugar than when I read your posts.

[CoachChaz]

I may be missing something, but is there really a large group of INFORMED fans that really expect Denver to win 12+ games and go to the Super Bowl this year?

[Thnikkaman]

I may be missing something, but is there really a large group of INFORMED fans that really expect Denver to win 12+ games and go to the Super Bowl this year?

No, but I believe the informed fans believe the ceiling of the Broncos is a more realistic 9-10 wins.

[G_Money]

LOL I hope not. But the prediction that even a Vintage Manning season at QB only gets this team to 7-9 or 8-8 is weird to me.

~G

[Cugel]

Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
I think you need to look past the Tebow mention to what he's actually saying. And that has to do with the Pythagorean Equation that Bill James invented to show the number of wins a baseball team should have had based on the runs scored vs. runs given up.

During that six game stretch Denver outscored opponents 136 to 102. In the remaining other 10 games, Denver was outscored 288 to 173. So the theory states that if you get outscored 390 to 309 (81 point differential) you're likely to only win five or six games, rather than eight.

Which, as most of us have suspected, means the wins were more of an anomaly than anything else, much like the 6-0 start with Orton.

I disagree with the article's premise, however, that you can equate that to this year, because of the change at Quarterback and maturation of Von Miller and improvements to the secondary.

I also completelys disagree that this is the worst wide receiver group Manning has ever had.

The "Pythagorean Theorem" might be useful IF there was SOME continuity between Denver LAST season and Denver THIS season. Losing Orton and Tebow and getting Manning and changing the entire nature of the offense means that there is NOT much continuity at all on Offense.

As for defense, most of the defensive starters on opening day weren't even on the team in 2011, or didn't start.

LDE: 2011:Ayers, 2012: Hunter/Wolfe
LDT: 2011: Broderick Bunkley, 2012: Ty Warren
RDT: 2011: Marcus Thomas, 2012: Justin Bannan
RDE: 2011: Elvis Dumervil, 2012: Elvis Dumervil

ONE returning starter out of 4.

SLB: 2011: Von Miller, 2012: Von Miller
MLB: 2011: Mario Haggan, 2012: Joe Mays
WLB: 2011: D.J. Williams, 2012 D.J. Williams (Wesley Woodyard will start first 6 games during D.J.'s suspension).

Essentially Joe Mays is different and a better MLB than Haggan and that's the only difference.

DBs:

LCB: 2011: Champ Bailey, 2012: Champ Bailey
RCB:2011: Andre Goodman, 2012: Terry Porter
SS: 2011: Quinton Carter, 2012: Rahim Moore*/Quinton Carter
FS: 2011: Brian Dawkins, 2012: Mike Adams/Rahim Moore

All different but Champ, and every other position significantly improved.

Total FIVE returning starters out of 11. And three of those are Champ Bailey, Von Miller and Dumervil, all of whom made the pro-bowl. Whatever shortcomings the Broncos defense may have had in 2011 it wasn't due to those three!

Sure, there may be trouble along the OL if JD Walton and Orlando Franklin don't step up. But, pass blocking for Manning is vastly easier than blocking for Orton and Tebow.

NOBODY respected Orton's arm and they loaded the box and tried to flood rush him to pressure him. With Tebow it was actually worse, since they expected him to run first and throw second and because they knew he would try and avoid throwing over the middle of the field (especially long).

NOBODY is going to try and blitz Manning with 7 or 8 defenders. He'll see it coming a mile away and his eyes will light up like a pinball machine. He will destroy any defense that tries that by hitting his WRs down the field for a big play almost every time.

Teams tried to blitz Manning for years before they realized that it just doesn't work. He reads it, despite any disguised coverages. And he invariably hits the open man. He's quick with his throws and his footwork is impeccable.

Night and day difference. So, the pass-blocking should be MUCH better this year. Teams FEAR Peyton Manning and they don't want to let him get the big play. So they have to blitz him right up the middle with 4 defenders and play tight pass-coverage with the other 7.

Only most teams can't get to the QB effectively with only 4 defenders. Few teams are like the Giants or have an elite NT like the Patriots' Vince Wilfork who can penetrate into the middle of the OL.

Makes it tough to defend against Manning. I think the OL will be fine with another year of playing together (continuity counts) and having a MUCH easier QB to block for. It's nice to know where to push your defender because you KNOW where the QB will be than to have Tebow winging it and running around like a headless chicken all the time.

*Right now Carter is injured, which gives Moore a chance to prove he's over his rookie problems. Broncos like Moore this off-season, so he could start at SS, which would let them start Adams at the other spot and bring in a quality backup in Carter. Either way it's an improvement over last season.

** This analysis ignores the possibility that DJ may be suspended for the season and be replaced by Keith Brooking, and that Jim Leonhardt might start at SS ahead of Carter or Moore.

Either would probably provide an improvement over last season. Brooking especially will be a welcome addition because of his 15 year experience in the league, which means he can call defensive plays and let the defense know what the offense is trying.

As he says:
"I know from my perspective I have a lot of experience," Brooking said. "I have tons of plays in this league. I've seen it all."

[Nomad]

Thanks. I don't care that someone is negative or critical...just wondered why his opinion is one to pay attention to.

I say that about many people:lol: What's the saying....."When I respect your opinion, that's when I'll give a shit what you say"