PDA

View Full Version : Point differential



Lonestar
11-07-2007, 09:02 AM
The Broncos are next to last in point differential this season (minus-101), in front of St. Louis (minus-120). Yet, the Broncos are a game out of first place, while St. Louis is 0-8.

Pretty patheic if you ask me.. seems like we are three cheap plays away from being 0-7 this year..

Retired_Member_001
11-07-2007, 11:29 AM
The Broncos are next to last in point differential this season (minus-101), in front of St. Louis (minus-120). Yet, the Broncos are a game out of first place, while St. Louis is 0-8.

Pretty patheic if you ask me.. seems like we are three cheap plays away from being 0-7 this year..

It would be impossible for us to be 0-7.......................because we've played 8 games. ;)

It's a pretty pathetic stat though, I agree. We haven't really beaten a team convincingly since Arizona last season.

underrated29
11-07-2007, 11:46 AM
I think its just kind of a pathetic year for football, in a sense. This year it seems the teams are really watered down. there are about 3 good teams from each side colts,pats,steelers, and dallas,giants,packers. The rest of the teams are just beating the crap out of each other and wearing themselves out, and making it a serious dropoff from the three good teams.

this year sort of reminds me of the year the raiders did so well, back in the 90's. 99 maybe? or maybe it was earlier. anyway they did so well that year, but it wasnt because they were this all dominant team that destroyed everyone they played, they were just good and benefitted from a watered league.

Medford Bronco
11-07-2007, 11:48 AM
I think its just kind of a pathetic year for football, in a sense. This year it seems the teams are really watered down. there are about 3 good teams from each side colts,pats,steelers, and dallas,giants,packers. The rest of the teams are just beating the crap out of each other and wearing themselves out, and making it a serious dropoff from the three good teams.

this year sort of reminds me of the year the raiders did so well, back in the 90's. 99 maybe? or maybe it was earlier. anyway they did so well that year, but it wasnt because they were this all dominant team that destroyed everyone they played, they were just good and benefitted from a watered league.

I think it was 2002 UR

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002.htm

underrated29
11-07-2007, 11:53 AM
seems like we are three cheap plays away from being 0-7 this year..

true JR, but you also have to look at it the other way. We are also 2 cheap plays away from being 5-3 and leading the west.

the jax game, the bad call on marshall and our missed TD.
the green bay game, the other bad call on marshall and the missed TD.

underrated29
11-07-2007, 11:55 AM
I think it was 2002 UR

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002.htm

Thanks med, good find. You always know where to dig up those stats.:salute:

topscribe
11-07-2007, 12:17 PM
true JR, but you also have to look at it the other way. We are also 2 cheap plays away from being 5-3 and leading the west.

the jax game, the bad call on marshall and our missed TD.
the green bay game, the other bad call on marshall and the missed TD.

Half-empty, half-full.

I hope the players and staff are as optimistic as you are, U29.

They could use that. :beer:

-----

omac
11-07-2007, 04:22 PM
The Broncos are next to last in point differential this season (minus-101), in front of St. Louis (minus-120). Yet, the Broncos are a game out of first place, while St. Louis is 0-8.

Pretty patheic if you ask me.. seems like we are three cheap plays away from being 0-7 this year..

3 cheap plays? .....


Denver Broncos at 02:13 against Buffalo
1-10-DEN 34 (2:13) 20-T.Henry right tackle to DEN 42 for 8 yards (20-D.Whitner).
2-2-DEN 42 (2:00) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 20-T.Henry to DEN 45 for 3 yards (20-D.Whitner). Screen, caught at DEN 37. PENALTY on DEN-62-C.Myers, Offensive Holding, 11 yards, enforced at DEN 42 - No Play.
2-13-DEN 31 (1:52) 6-J.Cutler FUMBLES (Aborted) at DEN 25, touched at DEN 18, ball out of bounds at DEN 21. Pass batted by S.Young, out of bounds. Penalty on DEN-35-S.Young, Illegal Bat, declined.
3-23-DEN 21 (1:43) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 84-J.Walker to DEN 42 for 21 yards (24-T.McGee, 20-D.Whitner). Caught in flat at DEN 30. J.Walker injured on play, walks off.
Timeout #2 by DEN at 01:31.
4-2-DEN 42 (1:31) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler right end to DEN 49 for 7 yards (42-J.Leonhard).
1-10-DEN 49 (1:08) (No Huddle) 20-T.Henry left guard to DEN 46 for -3 yards (98-L.Tripplett).
Timeout #3 by DEN at 01:03.
2-13-DEN 46 (1:03) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 15-B.Marshall. Overthrown, receiver at BUF 41.
3-13-DEN 46 (:58) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 84-J.Walker pushed ob at BUF 43 for 11 yards (26-A.Youboty). Caught along sideline at BUF 43.
4-2-BUF 43 (:51) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 84-J.Walker to BUF 35 for 8 yards (26-A.Youboty).
1-10-BUF 35 (:38) 6-J.Cutler spiked the ball to stop the clock.
2-10-BUF 35 (:38) 6-J.Cutler right tackle to BUF 35 for no gain (26-A.Youboty).
3-10-BUF 35 (:18) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 84-J.Walker to BUF 24 for 11 yards (24-T.McGee).
1-10-BUF 24 (:01) 1-J.Elam 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.
DEN 15 BUF 14 Plays: 12 Possession: 2:13


Denver Broncos at 11:09 against Oakland
1-10-DEN 42 (11:09) 20-T.Henry up the middle to DEN 43 for 1 yard (54-S.Williams).
2-9-DEN 43 (10:31) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 30-M.Bell to 50 for 7 yards (27-F.Washington).
3-2- (9:43) 20-T.Henry left tackle to OAK 37 for 13 yards (30-S.Schweigert).
1-10-OAK 37 (9:00) 20-T.Henry up the middle to OAK 30 for 7 yards (52-K.Morrison; 98-J.Richardson).
2-3-OAK 30 (8:21) 20-T.Henry left guard to OAK 30 for no gain (93-T.Kelly; 99-W.Sapp).
3-3-OAK 30 (7:36) 30-M.Bell up the middle to OAK 27 for 3 yards (53-T.Howard).
1-10-OAK 27 (7:17) 20-T.Henry right tackle to OAK 28 for -1 yards (61-G.Warren).
2-11-OAK 28 (6:38) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 15-B.Marshall to OAK 6 for 22 yards (24-M.Huff).
1-6-OAK 6 (5:52) 1-J.Elam 23 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.
OAK 20 DEN 23 Plays: 9 Possession: 5:21


Denver Broncos at 01:10 against Pittsburgh
3-J.Reed kicks 70 yards from PIT 30 to end zone, Touchback.
1-10-DEN 20 (1:10) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 88-T.Scheffler to DEN 36 for 16 yards (43-T.Polamalu). Penalty on PIT-53-C.Haggans, Defensive Offside, declined.
1-10-DEN 36 (1:03) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep right to 15-B.Marshall.
2-10-DEN 36 (:59) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 15-B.Marshall to DEN 45 for 9 yards (24-I.Taylor).
3-1-DEN 45 (:43) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to DEN 46 for 1 yard (53-C.Haggans). PENALTY on PIT-92-J.Harrison, Defensive Offside, 5 yards, enforced at DEN 45 - No Play.
1-10- (:41) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 17-G.Martinez to PIT 39 for 11 yards (22-W.Gay).
Timeout #2 by DEN at 00:33.
1-10-PIT 39 (:33) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short middle to 89-D.Graham. Play Challenged by Replay Assistant and REVERSED. (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 89-D.Graham to PIT 30 for 9 yards (25-R.Clark).
2-1-PIT 30 (:20) 35-S.Young left tackle to PIT 31 for -1 yards (92-J.Harrison).
Timeout #2 by PIT at 00:02.
3-2-PIT 31 (:02) 1-J.Elam 49 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.
PIT 28 DEN 31 Plays: 7 Possession: 1:10

I counted slightly more than 3. :confused: (okay, that's 28 plays for anyone sarcasm impaired :D )

I thought they were 3 winning plays to cap of 3 winning drives; maybe the Pats Superbowl win against Carolina was one cheap play too, as they only won it by a fieldgoal, and they also had ridiculously great field possition due to a kicker penalty; but their short drive to reach field goal possition wasn't really anything. Cheap play, they should've lost that Superbowl, just like Denver should be 0-8 right? :D

I'm just playing ... if you'd rather focus on the game being close, instead of focusing on what the team did to win that close game, that's really your prerogative.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 04:35 PM
3 cheap plays? .....







I counted slightly more than 3. :confused:

I thought they were 3 winning plays to cap of 3 winning drives; maybe the Pats Superbowl win against Carolina was one cheap play too, as they only won it by a fieldgoal, and they also had ridiculously great field possition due to a kicker penalty; but their short drive to reach field goal possition wasn't really anything. Cheap play, they should've lost that Superbowl, just like Denver should be 0-8 right? :D

I'm just playing ... if you'd rather focus on the game being close, instead of focusing on what the team did to win that close game, that's really your prerogative.

3 cheap plays all last second heroic from mikey and or Jason.

Without those FG we would be 0-7. Now granted having great FG kicker should allow you to win games, but when every win is a comeback and a potential heart breaker. Lets face it this team is no where near as good as it should HAVE been. the key words there is SHOULD have..

When you look at who we beat and then who beat us, let me rephrase that WHOOPED us and take off the rose colored glasses you will admit that this team has more than injury problems. IMO

omac
11-07-2007, 04:42 PM
3 cheap plays all last second heroic from mikey and or Jason.

Without those FG we would be 0-7. Now granted having great FG kicker should allow you to win games, but when every win is a comeback and a potential heart breaker. Lets face it this team is no where near as good as it should HAVE been. the key words there is SHOULD have..

When you look at who we beat and then who beat us, let me rephrase that WHOOPED us and take off the rose colored glasses you will admit that this team has more than injury problems. IMO

(edit: deleted my own comments)

Nowhere in my post did I say the Broncos are a great team this season. You decided to focus on 3 plays, and my post was about elaborating that it was definitely more than just that.

anton...
11-07-2007, 06:04 PM
what if...
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

Day1BroncoFan
11-07-2007, 06:11 PM
Conversely, you could say that we're only a few stupid plays from being 5-3. One play that stands out is a fumble on the 1 yard line against GB.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 06:15 PM
Conversely, you could say that we're only a few stupid plays from being 5-3. One play that stands out is a fumble on the 1 yard line against GB.


We really have no reason to believe we would have gotten a TD out to there either, could have been just another 3 points. Or another turn over..

Then you say we would have won by three and then I say unless you r up by 30 on Farve nothing is scared. He just like John used to be best under pressure. Jay is not quite there yet..

Krugan
11-07-2007, 07:26 PM
We really have no reason to believe we would have gotten a TD out to there either, could have been just another 3 points. Or another turn over..

Then you say we would have won by three and then I say unless you r up by 30 on Farve nothing is scared. He just like John used to be best under pressure. Jay is not quite there yet..

Funny, even without the touchdow, wouldnt we have won by 3?

It is what it is, we can what if, got lucky all day long. Denver is 3-5 regardless.

TXBRONC
11-07-2007, 07:30 PM
Funny, even without the touchdow, wouldnt we have won by 3?

It is what it is, we can what if, got lucky all day long. Denver is 3-5 regardless.

A win is a win it doesn't matter it is by one point, two points or more.

Day1BroncoFan
11-07-2007, 07:35 PM
We really have no reason to believe we would have gotten a TD out to there either, could have been just another 3 points. Or another turn over..

Then you say we would have won by three and then I say unless you r up by 30 on Farve nothing is scared. He just like John used to be best under pressure. Jay is not quite there yet..

We can talk what if's all day. I'm just saying what if we won, you say what if we lost... same diff.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 07:40 PM
We can talk what if's all day. I'm just saying what if we won, you say what if we lost... same diff.


I agree I said what I believe may wish to have the head in the ...... well they do not wish to see the facts that are becoming more apparent every day.

A wholesale buying spree on DE yesterday when we desperately need DT's make sense to me..



Do they think that 4-5 De's on the field at one time will equal getting a decent clog in the running game or mabe even a bit f pressure in the passing side..

TXBRONC
11-07-2007, 07:49 PM
I agree I said what I believe may wish to have the head in the ...... well they do not wish to see the facts that are becoming more apparent every day.

A wholesale buying spree on DE yesterday when we desperately need DT's make sense to me..



Do they think that 4-5 De's on the field at one time will equal getting a decent clog in the running game or mabe even a bit f pressure in the passing side..


I advocate that, however the Giants are putting three and four defensive ends on the fied at any one time.

Krugan
11-07-2007, 08:16 PM
I agree I said what I believe may wish to have the head in the ...... well they do not wish to see the facts that are becoming more apparent every day.

A wholesale buying spree on DE yesterday when we desperately need DT's make sense to me..



Do they think that 4-5 De's on the field at one time will equal getting a decent clog in the running game or mabe even a bit f pressure in the passing side..

Jr there is no way to argue what is already done. Sloppy, crappy, pathetic, what ever description you want to put to it, Denver won those games.

If you werent so very inclined to only look at the negative, at this point in time, you would see those 3 wins are still 3 wins.

Had there been no fumble at the 1, we kick a field goal and win by 3. Had the Phantom hold not been called there is a reasonable chance we get at least 3 more there. We could be 4-4 with one small break.

See, the ifs go both ways, not just the bad way. Funny even with my head...
the ifs still go both ways.

And thats the facts, Jack

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 08:18 PM
I advocate that, however the Giants are putting three and four defensive ends on the fied at any one time.


Do you think that Denver's DE are of the same caliber that the giants are?

Do you really think it fits into Bates scheme?

Looks to me like mass panic in dove valley. Get rid of a Safety everyone was high on when your starting SS is questionable at best for the rest of the year if not his career.

Lets see who else did they cut Gordon I think it was one to the DT in rotation.. that had more tackles than any other DT unless he was hurt this move ,makes as much sense as cutting warren and kennedy.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=384528536F34FBA76B87B3D11 5A38359?archive=false&seasonType=REG&statisticPositionCategory=DEFENSIVE_LINEMAN&d-447263-o=1&conference=0011&d-447263-s=PERSON_TEAMS.TEAMS.FULL_NAME&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Find&tabSeq=1&d-447263-p=1

TXBRONC
11-07-2007, 08:24 PM
Do you think that Denver's DE are of the same caliber that the giants are?

Do you really think it fits into Bates scheme?

Looks to me like mass panic in dove valley. Get rid of a Safety everyone was high on when your starting SS is questionable at best for the rest of the year if not his career.

Lets see who else did they cut Gordon I think it was one to the DT in rotation.. that had more tackles than any other DT unless he was hurt this move ,makes as much sense as cutting warren and kennedy.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=384528536F34FBA76B87B3D11 5A38359?archive=false&seasonType=REG&statisticPositionCategory=DEFENSIVE_LINEMAN&d-447263-o=1&conference=0011&d-447263-s=PERSON_TEAMS.TEAMS.FULL_NAME&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Find&tabSeq=1&d-447263-p=1


Did I say they were Jr? My point is that has being done.

Jr unless you're in on the meeting you have no clue if they are panicking which I doubt they are.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 08:25 PM
Jr there is no way to argue what is already done. Sloppy, crappy, pathetic, what ever description you want to put to it, Denver won those games.

If you werent so very inclined to only look at the negative, at this point in time, you would see those 3 wins are still 3 wins.

Had there been no fumble at the 1, we kick a field goal and win by 3. Had the Phantom hold not been called there is a reasonable chance we get at least 3 more there. We could be 4-4 with one small break.

See, the ifs go both ways, not just the bad way. Funny even with my head...
the ifs still go both ways.

And thats the facts, Jack

and without those hail Marys we could be anywhere from 0-8 and 3-5 which we are..

That is also a fact..


believe what you wish this teams is not the team promised by mikey year after year it is we are one or two players away. We had more off season deals than anyone did this past year only to get worse than we were.

How many players are we away from being a championship team this year, I heard that mikey is doing his first draft for his EOY press conference as we speak.

TXBRONC
11-07-2007, 08:28 PM
and without those hail Marys we could be anywhere from 0-8 and 3-5 which we are..

That is also a fact..


believe what you wish this teams is not the team promised by mikey year after year it is we are one or two players away. We had more off season deals than anyone did this past year only to get worse than we were.

How many players are we away from being a championship team this year, I heard that mikey is doing his first draft for his EOY press conference as we speak.


If if and buts were candies and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas. We could be 0-8 doesn't mean jack because we not 0-8 you really need to get that through your head.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 08:29 PM
Did I say they were Jr? My point is that has being done.

Jr unless you're in on the meeting you have no clue if they are panicking which I doubt they are.


I guess I missed tha in your post pardon me but when someone says some else is doing it after I stated DEn would almost have to do this nutty thing. I guess I just thought you were replying to me.


Anyway no more TX you can have the last post here.. I'm tired..

Fan in Exile
11-07-2007, 09:04 PM
I know that a lot of people have been blaming our problems with the run on the guys in the middle. However reality doesn't agree with that. Runs up the middle are only averaging 4.04 yards. Runs at the DE's are averaging anywhere from a half a yard to a yard and a half longer. Check herehttp://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl.php

That being the case, I don't think it's crazy to be taking a look at more DE's.

Lonestar
11-07-2007, 09:12 PM
I know that a lot of people have been blaming our problems with the run on the guys in the middle. However reality doesn't agree with that. Runs up the middle are only averaging 4.04 yards. Runs at the DE's are averaging anywhere from a half a yard to a yard and a half longer. Check herehttp://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl.php

That being the case, I don't think it's crazy to be taking a look at more DE's.

They are being run on because the DT's are not doing there jobs.. Clogging up the blockers..

If the OLINE can get single coverage on a line guy that means they have 5 or 6-7 depending on TE on 4 of our DLine..

Then the LB get cut out of the loop. because they also have a OG or OT tackle that is free. Plus in Bates system he plays the DE really wide so they can go get the QB. there fore what is really supposed to be off tackle outside of the DE is now inside the tackle between the DE and DT make sense.

Fan in Exile
11-07-2007, 09:24 PM
You're ignoring the responsibilities the DE's have in the run game. Would it help some if the DT's were playing better, sure but the bigger problems really do seem to be on the outside where our DE's are playing.

When it comes to identifying what's broken here, both the stats and the personell moves point to the DE's not the DT's so I'm going with them.

broncosfanscott
11-07-2007, 09:31 PM
If if and buts were candies and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas. We could be 0-8 doesn't mean jack because we not 0-8 you really need to get that through your head.

You got that right. A win is a win and our record is 3-5. We are what we are.....nothing more nothing less. I have friends that constantly use "what ifs" and it drives me nuts.

TXBRONC
11-07-2007, 09:35 PM
You got that right. A win is a win and our record is 3-5. We are what we are.....nothing more nothing less. I have friends that constantly use "what ifs" and it drives me nuts.


I hear ya. The fact is we not 0-8. The Broncos did win those three game, it's in the record books end of story.

Day1BroncoFan
11-07-2007, 10:30 PM
I agree I said what I believe may wish to have the head in the ...... well they do not wish to see the facts that are becoming more apparent every day.

A wholesale buying spree on DE yesterday when we desperately need DT's make sense to me..



Do they think that 4-5 De's on the field at one time will equal getting a decent clog in the running game or mabe even a bit f pressure in the passing side..

We both agree that things are not as they should be. Something needs to be done or we will end up with a losing season for sure. Signing players that won't help us won't help us.

The KC game could turn it around or seal it.

sneakers
11-08-2007, 12:27 AM
It would be impossible for us to be 0-7.......................because we've played 8 games. ;)

It's a pretty pathetic stat though, I agree. We haven't really beaten a team convincingly since Arizona last season.

We could be 0-7-1. Does that count?

Lonestar
11-08-2007, 03:22 AM
We both agree that things are not as they should be. Something needs to be done or we will end up with a losing season for sure. Signing players that won't help us won't help us.

The KC game could turn it around or seal it.


Losing season is a almost guaranteed especially with the latest actions taken to shore up and leaky boat .

Their either geniuses in dove valley or it is a fire sale..

I for one do not see much more than 1 possibly two wins out there for them yet this year.. Winning in KC is a possibility with LJ out of the picture.. Only if priest does not run like a pro bowler HOF Rb like he used to be, but against this defense there maybe 300 yards out there for him.

shank
11-08-2007, 11:05 AM
am i the only one who finds JR's spin-doctoring even more ridiculous when people use the same logic to show how we could be leading the AFC west and he tells them they are wrong?!

JR an intact dingy floats better than a leaky yacht. Things have not gone our way this season, but i know you saw us play with Pitt. Stop blowing things out of proportion and hope that the broncos of the 1st half of the Pitt or Indy games shows up to play the rest of the season.

Lonestar
11-08-2007, 12:33 PM
am i the only one who finds JR's spin-doctoring even more ridiculous when people use the same logic to show how we could be leading the AFC west and he tells them they are wrong?!

JR an intact dingy floats better than a leaky yacht. Things have not gone our way this season, but i know you saw us play with Pitt. Stop blowing things out of proportion and hope that the broncos of the 1st half of the Pitt or Indy games shows up to play the rest of the season.

You see that is the problem two decent halves of a 8 game season.. Do you really think that they could even if a third of the starters were not on IR they could do this sustain that level of play for 8 more games..

Get real and let the survival of the fittest go on and we will fall to where we should be near the top of the draft.

Even if this team could some how get into the playoffs just how many minutes into the game would it still be a game?

I'd much rather have a patched Yacht next year with the addition of 3-5 quality draftees in the wings. How about you?

TXBRONC
11-08-2007, 12:53 PM
am i the only one who finds JR's spin-doctoring even more ridiculous when people use the same logic to show how we could be leading the AFC west and he tells them they are wrong?!

JR an intact dingy floats better than a leaky yacht. Things have not gone our way this season, but i know you saw us play with Pitt. Stop blowing things out of proportion and hope that the broncos of the 1st half of the Pitt or Indy games shows up to play the rest of the season.

To say the least you're not alone.