PDA

View Full Version : the good and the bad.



broncosinindy
09-07-2014, 11:29 PM
Julius thomas - awesome game

Peyton Manning great first half .. I think the play calling lead to the down second half.

Sanders had a good game and it would have been better if manning had not overthrown him on a couple routes

DT had a down game.

Montes Ball great run on the the goal line... Gonna have to go back and look to see if some of his runs were on him or the line. Seemed to have happy feet.

Ware. Good game

Tj ward had some impact plays

Roby looked good and Webster maybe kicking himself at this point.

Whenever t carter is on the field I fear penalties

Nate Irving had a great game

Feel free to expand on this

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
09-07-2014, 11:41 PM
My thoughts were that the D played well for the most part and DT looked out of it much of the game. I also think that Roby made a good play at the end, but he also got picked on a lot throughout the game, which gives me cause for a bit of concern.

I also don't feel bad for Webster b/c his absence just meant more T Carter, which should give him nothing to fear.

DenBronx
09-07-2014, 11:51 PM
Talib I thought played splendid!

Simple Jaded
09-08-2014, 12:10 AM
I don't think Ball or the run blocking was particularly impressive, there's work to be done in the running game, iirc they had their share of short-yardage conversions though.

Hawgdriver
09-08-2014, 12:55 AM
TJ Ward was the pickup the Broncos needed.

Simple Jaded
09-08-2014, 12:58 AM
TJ Ward was the pickup the Broncos needed.

Yeah I was impressed, and I'm not a fan of his at all. Good signing.

Joel
09-08-2014, 01:00 AM
Montes Ball great run on the the goal line... Gonna have to go back and look to see if some of his runs were on him or the line. Seemed to have happy feet.
You won't have to look long: He broke a lot of tackles, but most were at or behind the line. Oddly enough, it looked like Ramirez and Vasquez opened a pretty nice hole on the TD that he skipped right past to bounce off Clark and a couple Colts before diving in on the left, but the whole "happy feet" and "hesitancy" thing is mostly a product of expecting to get hit almost at the handoff, IMHO, just as it was when people condemned Moreno for the EXACT SAME THINGS throughout his Denver career. He didn't look hesistant or happy-footed running for 5.6/carry and >100 total against a rebuilt NE D today.

Frankly, I think Morenos breakout year was mainly due to him saying, "to Hell with it," accepting his line would leave him hanging, and simply resigning himself to breaking as many tackles and carrying defenders as far as he could before they dragged him down; it doesn't do a lot of good to make "the first man miss" if there's 3 more right behind him. A back whose line makes him ACCUSTOMED to that gets hesistant happy feet in a hurry though. Want a running game, either get Barry Sanders or starting quality Gs, not failed RGs, failed RTs and converted DTs. I like Vasquez, but that's about it inside.


I don't think Ball or the run blocking was particularly impressive, there's work to be done in the running game, iirc they had their share of short-yardage conversions though.
I WILL grant that, and it was a welcome change. Still not thrilled about the 3.2 average, but if we get that CONSISTENTLY enough 3rd and 2 isn't automatically a passing down anymore, I'll sleep far better.

Simple Jaded
09-08-2014, 01:09 AM
The Broncos had 24 first downs, 8 of them from running the ball.

Magnificent Seven
09-08-2014, 01:13 AM
Julius thomas - awesome game

Peyton Manning great first half .. I think the play calling lead to the down second half.

Sanders had a good game and it would have been better if manning had not overthrown him on a couple routes

DT had a down game.

Montes Ball great run on the the goal line... Gonna have to go back and look to see if some of his runs were on him or the line. Seemed to have happy feet.

Ware. Good game

Tj ward had some impact plays

Roby looked good and Webster maybe kicking himself at this point.

Whenever t carter is on the field I fear penalties

Nate Irving had a great game

Feel free to expand on this

I agree. I think WR Demaryius Thomas was rusty. He will play better in game 2 and get prepared for Seattle.

Joel
09-08-2014, 01:40 AM
The Broncos had 24 first downs, 8 of them from running the ball.
They had some nice short yardage conversions (all in the first half, IIRC; NOTHING worked in the second, though Ball got our only second half TD on a goal line plunge.) Ball nearly broke one for a TD in the first half, too, when the line gave him a lane on the right for double digit yards and a first down before he JUST got tripped up with nothing between him and the end zone but one Colt well blocked by a WR. There were a few holes, but those were the exception, not rule; to make teams respect our run too much to just drop 5-6 guys in coverage and send everyone else for Mannings head, we MUST do better.

BroncoWave
09-08-2014, 07:49 AM
I thought CJ played really well in his limited action. I'd like to give him a more of an extended look. Hillman may have screwed himself with whatever took place in Dallas.

Tony Carter played a typical Tony Carter game. Penalties and getting beat. He won't be in the league much longer with these stricter illegal contact rules.

I though our entire starting secondary played pretty well. They all made big plays throughout the game. Harris, Roby, Talib, Ward, and Moore are a damn good group.

Irving was a beast in the middle. He was making plays all night.

Von was pretty much a no show. Really hope he rounds into form soon.

The oline was kinda shaky at times would like to see some more consistency from them.

I think it's time for Latimer to replace Caldwell in the starting lineup.

Burse scares me. Still don't think we've solved our kr issues.

I love Sanders. It seems impossible, but I think he makes our passing game even scarier than last year.

Our second half complacency when we get a big lead still really concerns me. Gotta keep our foot on the pedal for 60 minutes.

That's all i got for now. Overall, I'm happy with the win and think our issues will get better.

VonDoom
09-08-2014, 08:02 AM
I thought CJ played really well in his limited action. I'd like to give him a more of an extended look. Hillman may have screwed himself with whatever took place in Dallas.

Tony Carter played a typical Tony Carter game. Penalties and getting beat. He won't be in the league much longer with these stricter illegal contact rules.

I though our entire starting secondary played pretty well. They all made big plays throughout the game. Harris, Roby, Talib, Ward, and Moore are a damn good group.

Irving was a beast in the middle. He was making plays all night.

Von was pretty much a no show. Really hope he rounds into form soon.

The oline was kinda shaky at times would like to see some more consistency from them.

I think it's time for Latimer to replace Caldwell in the starting lineup.

Burse scares me. Still don't think we've solved our kr issues.

I love Sanders. It seems impossible, but I think he makes our passing game even scarier than last year.

Our second half complacency when we get a big lead still really concerns me. Gotta keep our foot on the pedal for 60 minutes.

That's all i got for now. Overall, I'm happy with the win and think our issues will get better.

As is often the case, you and I have a lot of the same takes. I wanted to see some more CJ as well, and maybe even Juwan. I like Ball, and I blame most of his issues last night on the OL, but that might just be my untrained eye. I looked at the game book - he ran 23 times for 67 yards, 2.9 YPC. He had a 15 yard run to start the game, meaning he went 22 for 52 after that, a putrid 2.4 YPC. Twelve of his 23 runs were for 2 or fewer yards. If we're going to get leads and play conservative, we have to be able to, you know, play conservative and actually eat clock.

I had mentioned Sanders in the other thread - I thought he was a boss last night. I'm not going to run down Decker, but Sanders is a very different kind of receiver, as I've said here before, and he adds something to this offense that we didn't have last year. I think they need to take advantage of that more often - I loved the end around, and I think they need to at least threaten to run more plays like that. He doesn't have to be Percy Harvin, but I like the idea of getting yards any way we can.

I hope we clean up some of the issues and stomp the Chiefs next week.

Northman
09-08-2014, 08:28 AM
Tennesse doesnt have half the talent we do, i fully expect us to utterly destroy KC next week.

GEM
09-08-2014, 08:36 AM
I thought CJ played really well in his limited action. I'd like to give him a more of an extended look. Hillman may have screwed himself with whatever took place in Dallas.

Tony Carter played a typical Tony Carter game. Penalties and getting beat. He won't be in the league much longer with these stricter illegal contact rules.

I though our entire starting secondary played pretty well. They all made big plays throughout the game. Harris, Roby, Talib, Ward, and Moore are a damn good group.

Irving was a beast in the middle. He was making plays all night.

Von was pretty much a no show. Really hope he rounds into form soon.

The oline was kinda shaky at times would like to see some more consistency from them.

I think it's time for Latimer to replace Caldwell in the starting lineup.

Burse scares me. Still don't think we've solved our kr issues.

I love Sanders. It seems impossible, but I think he makes our passing game even scarier than last year.

Our second half complacency when we get a big lead still really concerns me. Gotta keep our foot on the pedal for 60 minutes.

That's all i got for now. Overall, I'm happy with the win and think our issues will get better.


That was it for me. That crowd was as rowdy and loud as I have ever seen it....even moreso than the season opener against the Raiders a couple seasons ago. Coming out after halftime, fans thought we would continue on with the steamroll. They just seemed to poof....turn into a whole different team. I just don't understand why we have always been a one half team. 4 freaking quarters. 60 minutes. Put your foot on their throat and continue pressing down. Especially when you have a fanbase that was ape shit crazy from the minute of kickoff to the 4th and 7 stop to end the game.

Mike
09-08-2014, 09:29 AM
I thought CJ played really well in his limited action. I'd like to give him a more of an extended look. Hillman may have screwed himself with whatever took place in Dallas.

Tony Carter played a typical Tony Carter game. Penalties and getting beat. He won't be in the league much longer with these stricter illegal contact rules.

I though our entire starting secondary played pretty well. They all made big plays throughout the game. Harris, Roby, Talib, Ward, and Moore are a damn good group.

Irving was a beast in the middle. He was making plays all night.

Von was pretty much a no show. Really hope he rounds into form soon.

The oline was kinda shaky at times would like to see some more consistency from them.

I think it's time for Latimer to replace Caldwell in the starting lineup.

Burse scares me. Still don't think we've solved our kr issues.

I love Sanders. It seems impossible, but I think he makes our passing game even scarier than last year.

Our second half complacency when we get a big lead still really concerns me. Gotta keep our foot on the pedal for 60 minutes.

That's all i got for now. Overall, I'm happy with the win and think our issues will get better.

I agree with most of that. I really thought that Anderson was more effective than Ball and that Denver should have given him more carries.

I thought the pass rush was pretty sparse in the second half. Whether by design because they feared Luck scrambling or just not effective, I don't know. Overall satisfied with the defense last night, but just expected more pressure.

While the coaches didn't do anything to complain about (aside from not using Anderson a little more), I still don't trust them. Not sure if it is was the offensive players or the playcalls that was off in the second half...but the players weren't executing the plays either way.

The last offensive drive did little to dispell my uncertainty in Manning in the clutch.

Good to come away with a win against a good Indy team though.

Ravage!!!
09-08-2014, 10:20 AM
of COURSE ROby was picked on. I remember when Charles Woodson first came into the NFL and the Chiefs absolutely SCHOOLED him on his first NFL game. I don't think it sho uld "concern" anyone that Roby was picked on. We should expect a rookie to be tested and tested early on. I find that good, as it will make him better and better.

DT looked bad this game.

EVERY time we get a Holding call coming out of the second half, Manning runs the ball on 1st and 20. ALways leaves us with 2 and 20 from our own 10...irritates me because it always the first drive of the 2nd half and it just kills the momentum we have coming out of the first.

Our defense looked...ok..our DBs looked GOOD. Ward looked fantastic. Just have to remember that Luck is an Elite passer. Our defense had some GREAT stops and that was really good to see.

Our OL did NOT look good. If we can't stop their pass rush, the one that was talked about having to "find a way to rush the passer"..... the Chiefs may knock Manning out. Not to mention Seattle.

Our offense in the second half, doesn't need to be said, but it looked like shit.

Ball got better and better as the game went. I like that he keeps moving his feet. CJ looked faster than Ball, but I wouldn't say 'better.' Hillman didn't screw himself out of anything.

Just like Roby...of COURSE Von Miller wasn't up to full speed last night. His first game after the ACL tear? Everyone kept saying all off-season that he most likely wouldn't be the same Miller we have known in the pass rush...and the fact that he's out there at all in game one is pretty amazing to begin with. He'll get stronger as the season goes and his leg strenthens.

GEM
09-08-2014, 10:30 AM
From where I was sitting, Miller looked tentative.

BigDaddyBronco
09-08-2014, 10:35 AM
The coaching staff needs to get a killer instinct and put some of these teams away. It's ok to beat someone by 30.

Running game needs to dramatically improve if they want to get leads and run the clock out. Neither the OLine or Ball looked good in the run game.

Manning looked a little off on several of his throws. That will fix itself.

Thought our secondary looked really good other than Tony Carter. There were some lapses mentally where some of the Colts were wide open. Don't know if that was play calling, the LB's, or the CB's. Trying to cover Reggie Wayne with a LB doesn't make much sense.

Von looks like it will be awhile before he regains his explosiveness. He didn't seem to explode off the line like he used to be able to do. Hopefully he gets it back this year sometime. Ware looks like a seasoned vet, he will help out, but it isn't the Ware of old.

Loved the play from Moore and Ward. Looks like we have a couple of monster safties. Carter played well too.

BroncoWave
09-08-2014, 11:29 AM
One more thing about our coaches being conservative. I hated that we sat on the ball going into the half with 19 seconds left and 3 timeouts. That is plenty of time to complete 2-3 passes and get us into range for a long fg.

Tebowtime2011
09-08-2014, 11:55 AM
From where I was sitting, Miller looked tentative. name me one player who is not tentative after they fully tore their acl in their first game back in the amount of time von had? It is unreasonable to expect him to trust his knee he will probably watch film and notice it too. He will get better as the season goes on. Just like when he came back from his suspension last year.

GEM
09-08-2014, 12:26 PM
Exactly. Tentative after an ACL tear is pretty normal. Don't push re-injury. I didn't see a guy who couldn't do what he used to do, I saw a guy who did what he could without chancing taking himself off the field to injury again.

spikerman
09-08-2014, 12:27 PM
name me one player who is not tentative after they fully tore their acl in their first game back in the amount of time von had? It is unreasonable to expect him to trust his knee he will probably watch film and notice it too. He will get better as the season goes on. Just like when he came back from his suspension last year.
I don't think it was a criticism, merely an observation.

VonDoom
09-08-2014, 12:38 PM
One more thing about our coaches being conservative. I hated that we sat on the ball going into the half with 19 seconds left and 3 timeouts. That is plenty of time to complete 2-3 passes and get us into range for a long fg.

Not as egregious as the Raven playoff game in 2012. I didn't even bat an eye at this one, honestly.

Speaking of weird coaching, though ... after we punt out of our end zone and the Colts get the ball in our territory, we have the opportunity to take five yards and re-kick it. Fox declined. Are we so afraid of a punt return TD that we don't even try to kick it again?

GEM
09-08-2014, 12:45 PM
Rahim. :D Happy for him. I know some will never let go of that game, but he's doing really well. Really happy for him.

Ziggy
09-08-2014, 01:32 PM
I was sitting on the 50 yard line, which allowed me to see a few things that I normally wouldn't have:

The offensive line was getting owned the entire game. Ball ran as well as he could for the room he had, which was close to none. If a normal QB would have been playing, Indy would have had a minimum of 4-5 sacks.

Outside of Demarcus Ware and Malik Jackson, the Dline was getting owned. Luck had all day to throw quite a few times-especially on critical down and distance plays.

JDR just doesn't have the killer instinct. We went into a full blown prevent defense on that last drive by Indy in the first half. Both safeties were playing 20 yards deep. Throughout the game, we usually had one corner in press and the other one playing 10 yards off of the receiver. You pay Talib 10 million/year to be physical with receivers. How do you expect him to do that when he's giving a 10 yard cushion? Ridiculous. When he was allowed to press, he took his man out of the game with blanket coverage.

Manning had some horrible throws, and the receivers has some silly drops.

Our special teams are still atrocious. I don't know if Rodgers has some pics of Elway in compromising positions or what, be he should have been fired 2 years ago.

On the bright side:

First and foremost, we won the game against the team that I think will be our main competition in the AFC. Luck is a master of the comeback, and our D came up with just enough big plays to stop another Luck comeback victory.

The new guys were awesome-
Ware- Beast
Talib- Playmaker
Roby- Great looking rookie
Ward- Beast

Montee Ball ran hard, despite having no daylight.

Rahim is back.

Malik was a big factor in the pass rush.

Irving looked like a legit starting NFL MLB.

Our new FG kicker erased the possibility of any returns on kickoffs, kicking 2 of them into the stands and hitting his only FG attempt.

Emmanuel Sanders brings a new element to this offense that we didn't have last season- Breakaway speed on both sides of the field.

JT is........well JT. What a monster.

Chris Harris looks like he hasn't lost a step after the injury. Once he gets into game shape, watch out.


I think this D misses Trevathan more than they want to admit. Marshall did a fine job filling in, but Trev is young star in the making. Can't wait for him to get back.

Last but not least.......27-0. My streak continues. In the 27 regular season Broncos games that I have been to over the years, this team is 27-0. I'm expecting season tickets in my stocking from Elway-claus this year.

weazel
09-08-2014, 01:43 PM
name me one player who is not tentative after they fully tore their acl in their first game back in the amount of time von had? It is unreasonable to expect him to trust his knee he will probably watch film and notice it too. He will get better as the season goes on. Just like when he came back from his suspension last year.


Exactly. Tentative after an ACL tear is pretty normal. Don't push re-injury. I didn't see a guy who couldn't do what he used to do, I saw a guy who did what he could without chancing taking himself off the field to injury again.

Reggie Wayne didn't look too tentative last night

tripp
09-08-2014, 01:58 PM
The good: T.J. Ward came as advertised, brought the physicality, and toughness we heard about from Cleveland, and brought that here. He looked threatening. Aqib Talib had many swats and even a tipped pass that led to an interception by Rahim Moore. D-Ware provided pressure to Luck, and helped quite a bit on 2 goal line stands, and on a few 3rd downs. The play calling was aggressive the 1st half, taking shots down the field, the running game opened up in the 2nd quarter and we were able to convert on 3rd and short to keep drives alive.

The bad: 2nd half conservative play calling killed us. Running game failing to get out of the back field, the O-line was constantly being penetrated leaving Montee Ball to break tackles to make a short gain. Dropped passes from DT and Caldwell.


Emmanuel Sanders was the energy spark we needed and made big plays to keep drives alive. Why didn't we use him more? This guy has the speed of Welker, why didn't we just use him as a slot for the short gains to get the first. Sanders was all over the field the 1st half, died out considerably in the 2nd half. Hopefully it's a minor adjustment on the O-line to fix whatever they were doing wrong last night. Demaryius Thomas looked out of place and not with it last night. He usually shows up to big games, but really last night.

tripp
09-08-2014, 02:00 PM
Not as egregious as the Raven playoff game in 2012. I didn't even bat an eye at this one, honestly.

Speaking of weird coaching, though ... after we punt out of our end zone and the Colts get the ball in our territory, we have the opportunity to take five yards and re-kick it. Fox declined. Are we so afraid of a punt return TD that we don't even try to kick it again?

Yeah that was weird. He didn't exactly display a lot of confidence in the Special Teams by opting to decline the penalty. We have one of the best punters in the league, and we're too afraid to try another punt to push the Colts out of our territory?

Ziggy
09-08-2014, 02:25 PM
The other thing that I forgot to note is that the Broncos D was not swarming. Outside of the goal line stand where they stopped Luck on the run, the D did not have 12 men flying to the ball. If they had, they would have had another turnover when the Indy receiver was stripped and recovered the ball. We also wouldn't have see the TE score on the missed tackle. I hope that gets corrected when they watch the film this week. Gem was at the game as well. Did you notice the same thing Gem?

VonDoom
09-08-2014, 02:39 PM
The other thing that I forgot to note is that the Broncos D was not swarming. Outside of the goal line stand where they stopped Luck on the run, the D did not have 12 men flying to the ball. If they had, they would have had another turnover when the Indy receiver was stripped and recovered the ball. We also wouldn't have see the TE score on the missed tackle. I hope that gets corrected when they watch the film this week. Gem was at the game as well. Did you notice the same thing Gem?

They probably would have been penalized for the part in bold :D

I kid, I kid. Thanks for the report from the game.

GEM
09-08-2014, 02:39 PM
The other thing that I forgot to note is that the Broncos D was not swarming. Outside of the goal line stand where they stopped Luck on the run, the D did not have 12 men flying to the ball. If they had, they would have had another turnover when the Indy receiver was stripped and recovered the ball. We also wouldn't have see the TE score on the missed tackle. I hope that gets corrected when they watch the film this week. Gem was at the game as well. Did you notice the same thing Gem?

That definitely was not happening. There seemed to be quite a few blown coverages. Balls getting to receiver and no one in close proximity. I do think that in the 2nd half, the defense was gassed. The offense could not get anything sustainable going and the offside kick, they just didn't have a lot of time to get their footing under them.

Mike
09-08-2014, 03:50 PM
Yeah that was weird. He didn't exactly display a lot of confidence in the Special Teams by opting to decline the penalty. We have one of the best punters in the league, and we're too afraid to try another punt to push the Colts out of our territory?

Colquitt is far from the best in the league. He has been crap since getting paid.

tripp
09-08-2014, 04:04 PM
Colquitt is far from the best in the league. He has been crap since getting paid.

I felt he had a great punt in the 2nd half to send back Whelan to his own 30.

BroncoWave
09-08-2014, 06:38 PM
Colquitt is far from the best in the league. He has been crap since getting paid.

Apparently McManus can put too. Maybe when Prater comes back we save a dime and boot Colquitt in favor of McManus.

Joel
09-09-2014, 05:17 AM
I agree with most of that. I really thought that Anderson was more effective than Ball and that Denver should have given him more carries.
I just don't think we saw enough Anderson to be sure: He outproduced Ball per run—but only had 4 carries. The long was 13, which was half his 27 total yards. That makes his average 4.66... on the other 3, still over a yard better than Ball, and that certainly justifies giving him >4 runs/gm to see if he's consistently better than Ball, but 4 for 27 shouldn't move anyone up the depth chart.


I thought the pass rush was pretty sparse in the second half. Whether by design because they feared Luck scrambling or just not effective, I don't know. Overall satisfied with the defense last night, but just expected more pressure.
I suspect that was much of it, especially after Lucks scramble for a TD just before the half got Indy back in the game. Plus Miller missed most of the camp conditioning, so he couldn't play every down. I'm more concerned with Ware needed a few downs off, and Quanterus Smiths invisibility in relief. But, again, Luck's got dangerous feet, so containing him was as important as pressuring him, and we generally did that, with a few exceptions like the TD scramble.


While the coaches didn't do anything to complain about (aside from not using Anderson a little more), I still don't trust them. Not sure if it is was the offensive players or the playcalls that was off in the second half...but the players weren't executing the plays either way.

The last offensive drive did little to dispell my uncertainty in Manning in the clutch.
That second half was on our run blocking, IMHO, and how much of that is Gase and Fox rather than lack of talent remains to be seen. Remember, Ramirez was an AWFUL starting G 2 years ago, and Franklin hasn't played G since college. Vasquez is definitely the pick of that litter, but still a better pass blocker than run blocker, and Clark hasn't shown the strength that makes him good against bull rushers is enough to offset the immobility that makes him bad against speed rushers.

They got good push in short yardage, and that's a welcome change, but holes too often went the wrong way in the run game, with defenders grabbing Ball in our backfield instead of lanes for him to run to the second level. There's a lot of Morenoesque complaints Ball was tentative and had happy feet, but when he's hit right at the handoff, I put that on our line, not our RBs, and doubt Anderson nor anyone else would've done much better. Ball broke a lot of tackles, but 5 extra yards from 2 yds behind the line is still only a 3 yd run: Not good enough to seal a win.


Good to come away with a win against a good Indy team though.
No argument there; the chances of Irsay playing his "let's see how Peyton likes an open roof" game in the postseason dropped dramatically after that win.

BroncoWave
09-09-2014, 07:21 AM
Joel, who said Anderson should be moved up the depth chart?

Joel
09-09-2014, 07:53 AM
The offensive line was getting owned the entire game. Ball ran as well as he could for the room he had, which was close to none. If a normal QB would have been playing, Indy would have had a minimum of 4-5 sacks.


The bad: 2nd half conservative play calling killed us. Running game failing to get out of the back field, the O-line was constantly being penetrated leaving Montee Ball to break tackles to make a short gain. Dropped passes from DT and Caldwell.
Glad other people are seeing this—actually, no, because some of those people are opposing DCs, and we need look no further than SB XLVIII to see what happens to our great pass—er, "offense" when defenses don't have to respect our running. We DID run well to the left behind Clady, Franklin and a pair of TEs Sunday, and that opened things up for a long play action pass to Sanders that set us up with 1st and G; Collinsworth even did a side-by-side replay to show why the PA worked so well.

That was the exception to the rule of 3.2 yds/carry, and when a team can't run defenses laugh at play action as they swarm the QB. It leaves Manning "running" for his life or forced to throw into double coverage because we must max protect him and leave just 3 receivers trying to get open among 5-6 LBs and DBs. Just as importantly, on those all important second half drives with the lead, when we need to kill the clock to minimize opposing Hail Maries, we can't get it done.


JDR just doesn't have the killer instinct. We went into a full blown prevent defense on that last drive by Indy in the first half. Both safeties were playing 20 yards deep. Throughout the game, we usually had one corner in press and the other one playing 10 yards off of the receiver. You pay Talib 10 million/year to be physical with receivers. How do you expect him to do that when he's giving a 10 yard cushion? Ridiculous. When he was allowed to press, he took his man out of the game with blanket coverage.
Indy was 80 yds from our end zone with 1:57 left, down by 24: We SHOULD'VE been in Prevent; the problem is we STILL SUCK at it. Even after a scattershot mad bomber like Flacco took his team to a championship with 2:00 drill TDs at the end of BOTH halves, our D's apparently incapable of THE SECONDARYS MOST BASIC JOB: Don't let people behind you for Hail Mary TDs. It's really simple stuff: Guard the sidelines and end zone, trading half the field for those final 2:00 they have to score, so they can't. Our head coach is a former DB, for Petes sake; how hard is this?!

The weird thing is we kinda DID play a nice Prevent in the 3rd qtr: Indy had the ball for just under 10:00, racked up >100 yds of offense—and came away with just 3 pts that left them trailing 24-10 at the start of the 4th, thanks to back-to-back goal line stands that included a 1 yard loss on 4th and G at the 1. Moore and Legwold are on record that won the game, but it took more: The three-and-out at Indys 10 to set up the game winning TD drive from their 48, Moores second Int, Roby knocking down Lucks last pass to Wayne.

I can't say enough about how well our D played, especially after spending most of the 3rd qtr with its butt to our goal line vs. a great offense—but OUR offense isn't supposed to make their job THAT hard.


Irving looked like a legit starting NFL MLB.
He convinced me, and I've been as skeptical of him as anyone. He was good in coverage, proved MLBs are still allowed sacks and was solid as ever vs. the run: Classic do-it-all 4-3 Mike. I still like Johnson, and didn't worry much about him coming on briefly when Irving was hurt, but that just means we've got the solid starter AND solid backup I want in the middle.


The play calling was aggressive the 1st half, taking shots down the field, the running game opened up in the 2nd quarter and we were able to convert on 3rd and short to keep drives alive.
Pity we couldn't keep that up in the second half when we HAD to run and Pagano knew it; we wouldn't be talking about our D, but would be talking about a 30 pt beatdown.


Emmanuel Sanders was the energy spark we needed and made big plays to keep drives alive. Why didn't we use him more? This guy has the speed of Welker, why didn't we just use him as a slot for the short gains to get the first. Sanders was all over the field the 1st half, died out considerably in the 2nd half. Hopefully it's a minor adjustment on the O-line to fix whatever they were doing wrong last night. Demaryius Thomas looked out of place and not with it last night. He usually shows up to big games, but really last night.
Yeah, not missing Decker after the game Sanders had, especially since I can't help wondering how many of his catches Decker would've dropped. Actually, I look forward to playing the Jets after reading this: http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/11490234/eric-decker-new-york-jets-says-no-longer-fan-denver-broncos .

Joel
09-09-2014, 08:00 AM
Joel, who said Anderson should be moved up the depth chart?
Anderson's #2 behind Ball until/less Hillman's out of the doghouse, so saying he should get more touches (and thus Ball less) tends to imply moving him past Ball. If we're talking a 17/10 split instead of 23/4, that's fine, but I still doubt it'll make much difference until/less our run blocking dramatically improves. Ball was breaking lots of tackles for extra yards: It was just on the WRONG SIDE of the LoS.

That ain't on him, and I don't see how Anderson nor anyone but maybe Barry Sanders or Earl Campbell could do better. 4 runs for 27 yds (half of them on a single carry) doesn't argue otherwise.

VonDoom
09-09-2014, 08:14 AM
Anderson's #2 behind Ball until/less Hillman's out of the doghouse, so saying he should get more touches (and thus Ball less) tends to imply moving him past Ball. If we're talking a 17/10 split instead of 23/4, that's fine, but I still doubt it'll make much difference until/less our run blocking dramatically improves. Ball was breaking lots of tackles for extra yards: It was just on the WRONG SIDE of the LoS.

That ain't on him, and I don't see how Anderson nor anyone but maybe Barry Sanders or Earl Campbell could do better. 4 runs for 27 yds (half of them on a single carry) doesn't argue otherwise.

I'm all for seeing more CJ. I'm not giving up on Ball or anything, but it would be nice to keep some fresh legs out there and see if anything works. Ball worked hard for his yards the other night and he certainly deserves the majority of carries in any given game, but if we have three active RBs, why not use the others occasionally?

Northman
09-09-2014, 08:33 AM
Ball should still be #1 but in a game like this past week i felt CJ was running better than Ball was and probably should of been given more playing time. Ball worked hard obviously but he was way to hesitant and shifty than Anderson was in his running. Sometimes you have to go with the guy that is doing better in that particular game.

Mike
09-09-2014, 08:35 AM
Anderson's #2 behind Ball until/less Hillman's out of the doghouse, so saying he should get more touches (and thus Ball less) tends to imply moving him past Ball. If we're talking a 17/10 split instead of 23/4, that's fine, but I still doubt it'll make much difference until/less our run blocking dramatically improves. Ball was breaking lots of tackles for extra yards: It was just on the WRONG SIDE of the LoS.

That ain't on him, and I don't see how Anderson nor anyone but maybe Barry Sanders or Earl Campbell could do better. 4 runs for 27 yds (half of them on a single carry) doesn't argue otherwise.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it looked like Anderson was more effective and I would have given him more touches in that game.

Joel
09-09-2014, 11:39 AM
I'm all for seeing more CJ. I'm not giving up on Ball or anything, but it would be nice to keep some fresh legs out there and see if anything works. Ball worked hard for his yards the other night and he certainly deserves the majority of carries in any given game, but if we have three active RBs, why not use the others occasionally?
The short answer is "because every time someone comes in, someone else leaves." Unless Anderson (or whoever) does more than Ball, or Ball's gasping for breath, is what we gain more than what we lose?

I just see no one else on this roster getting more than Ball when constantly hit behind the line. The solution to that's better blocking; solving it with a RB requires Elways alma mater and waiting till 2016.

Joel
09-09-2014, 11:46 AM
I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it looked like Anderson was more effective and I would have given him more touches in that game.
He had 4 runs: FOUR. That's not enough for reliable conclusions. Especially since half his 27 yds were on just ONE run.


Ball should still be #1 but in a game like this past week i felt CJ was running better than Ball was and probably should of been given more playing time. Ball worked hard obviously but he was way to hesitant and shifty than Anderson was in his running. Sometimes you have to go with the guy that is doing better in that particular game.
I still think he was hesitant and shifty because he could never know if the hole would actually be where it was supposed to be, or anywhere else, or how many Colts would be between him and it. Anderson quickly and decisively charging straight to where the play was drawn up and going down under a pile of unblocked defenders wouldn't have been any better than what Ball did.

We've gone from "we don't need Morenos hesistant shifty running when Ball's so much better" to "we need Anderson because Ball's such a hesitant shifty runner." Maybe the BACKS aren't the problem.

Northman
09-09-2014, 11:59 AM
We've gone from "we don't need Morenos hesistant shifty running when Ball's so much better" to "we need Anderson because Ball's such a hesitant shifty runner." Maybe the BACKS aren't the problem.

But you are wrong Joel. Not entirely, but mostly. Moreno's early running was not very decisive, his vision was very poor. It wasnt until the last 3 or so games a couple of years ago that he started running with more authority. Its the same authority that he now runs with in Miami. But he was not the same back when he started. Call it growing pains or laziness but he is a completely different RB now than when he first started. Im not advocating throwing ball to the trash bin but the Oline the other night was not the biggest issue in the run game. Down the stretch it was but a lot of that had to do with Indy deciding they were not going to let us run out the clock. But earlier in that game Ball was not making the best decisions when running the ball. And while Anderson didnt have as many touches in the game does not mean he wouldnt of done a bit better than ball. In the few touches he did have was making better decisions with his vision and decisiveness in the running lanes. I dont think it has to be a "either/or" scenario for us as a team. I just think that if one back is having more success in a game that he should get the extra necessary touches because he is the hot back. If the roles were reversed i would feel the same way with Ball or Thompson.

BroncoJoe
09-09-2014, 12:02 PM
I think we have to remember that was Ball's first significant action. After his surgery, he got like what, four or five carries in the preseason?

I still have faith in him. Not so much with Hillman, and would like to see more of CJ and Juwan.

VonDoom
09-09-2014, 12:54 PM
But you are wrong Joel. Not entirely, but mostly. Moreno's early running was not very decisive, his vision was very poor. It wasnt until the last 3 or so games a couple of years ago that he started running with more authority. Its the same authority that he now runs with in Miami. But he was not the same back when he started. Call it growing pains or laziness but he is a completely different RB now than when he first started. Im not advocating throwing ball to the trash bin but the Oline the other night was not the biggest issue in the run game. Down the stretch it was but a lot of that had to do with Indy deciding they were not going to let us run out the clock. But earlier in that game Ball was not making the best decisions when running the ball. And while Anderson didnt have as many touches in the game does not mean he wouldnt of done a bit better than ball. In the few touches he did have was making better decisions with his vision and decisiveness in the running lanes. I dont think it has to be a "either/or" scenario for us as a team. I just think that if one back is having more success in a game that he should get the extra necessary touches because he is the hot back. If the roles were reversed i would feel the same way with Ball or Thompson.

Right, I agree with this. Again, I'm not advocating benching or demoting Ball. We let Moreno leave to make Ball the feature back. But I'd like to see if any of these other guys can deliver, even in limited action. As North said here, if Ball is struggling for whatever reason, see if CJ or Juwan can step it up that game. We don't have a Peterson or a McCoy; if we need three different RB's to rotate and see who's on point that day, so be it.

Joel
09-09-2014, 01:23 PM
But you are wrong Joel. Not entirely, but mostly. Moreno's early running was not very decisive, his vision was very poor. It wasnt until the last 3 or so games a couple of years ago that he started running with more authority. Its the same authority that he now runs with in Miami. But he was not the same back when he started. Call it growing pains or laziness but he is a completely different RB now than when he first started. Im not advocating throwing ball to the trash bin but the Oline the other night was not the biggest issue in the run game. Down the stretch it was but a lot of that had to do with Indy deciding they were not going to let us run out the clock. But earlier in that game Ball was not making the best decisions when running the ball. And while Anderson didnt have as many touches in the game does not mean he wouldnt of done a bit better than ball. In the few touches he did have was making better decisions with his vision and decisiveness in the running lanes. I dont think it has to be a "either/or" scenario for us as a team. I just think that if one back is having more success in a game that he should get the extra necessary touches because he is the hot back. If the roles were reversed i would feel the same way with Ball or Thompson.
FOUR carries. FOUR. That tells us nothing; Balls anemic production says more, but—did you really look at those runs? A BUNCH of broken tackles for extra yardage; it's not his fault they were all behind the line, and sticking Anderson or anyone else out there in his place wouldn't have kept Indy out of our backfield. THEY decided they wouldn't LET us run on them? I thought this was historys best offense: Why is ANYONE dictating its options to it on its own field, least of all a mediocre D missing probably its best player.

Sure, Moreno's run with more authority since he got the starting job back: Because he finally realized he HAD to behind our Swiss cheese run blocking. Same reason he was hesitant and shifty before that; same reason Ball is now. Same reason Anderson or anyone else would be. Moreno finally said, "to Hell with it; I'll never get help from the line, and always get hit in the backfield: I'll just knock off as many of those dudes as possible and drag the rest as far as I can." It made him a MEAN runner, because he was venting frustration, and our line gave him a LOT of frustration to vent.

Do that to Anderson—or Ball or Thompson—for 3 years, benching him and threatening to cut him twice a season, and he'll probably run with the same kind of angry power—if he survives.

Joel
09-09-2014, 01:25 PM
I just don't want to debate which of our promising young RBs should be thrown to the wolves: Whoever wins that contest loses until/unless we run block.

Northman
09-09-2014, 01:55 PM
FOUR carries. FOUR. That tells us nothing; Balls anemic production says more, but—did you really look at those runs? A BUNCH of broken tackles for extra yardage; it's not his fault they were all behind the line, and sticking Anderson or anyone else out there in his place wouldn't have kept Indy out of our backfield. THEY decided they wouldn't LET us run on them? I thought this was historys best offense: Why is ANYONE dictating its options to it on its own field, least of all a mediocre D missing probably its best player.

Sure, Moreno's run with more authority since he got the starting job back: Because he finally realized he HAD to behind our Swiss cheese run blocking. Same reason he was hesitant and shifty before that; same reason Ball is now. Same reason Anderson or anyone else would be. Moreno finally said, "to Hell with it; I'll never get help from the line, and always get hit in the backfield: I'll just knock off as many of those dudes as possible and drag the rest as far as I can." It made him a MEAN runner, because he was venting frustration, and our line gave him a LOT of frustration to vent.

Do that to Anderson—or Ball or Thompson—for 3 years, benching him and threatening to cut him twice a season, and he'll probably run with the same kind of angry power—if he survives.

Sorry, you are just wrong. And i dont need to write a paragraph to state it.

Joel
09-09-2014, 02:52 PM
Sorry, you are just wrong. And i dont need to write a paragraph to state it.
We'll see. If I'm not, Ball will keep averaging 3 yds/att (if he's lucky) and we'll sooner than later see as much of Anderson as anyone would like, with no more production. I truly hope I'm wrong, but at present this sounds a lot like saying a Mustang up on blocks would be faster if it were a Camaro up on blocks.

Northman
09-09-2014, 02:56 PM
We'll see. If I'm not, Ball will keep averaging 3 yds/att (if he's lucky) and we'll sooner than later see as much of Anderson as anyone would like, with no more production. I truly hope I'm wrong, but at present this sounds a lot like saying a Mustang up on blocks would be faster if it were a Camaro up on blocks.

I think you are just misinterpreting my stance on Ball. Im not saying he sucks by any means. As someone pointed out he just came off an injury so maybe some what we saw was do to that i dont know. My stance on Moreno has changed entirely since he changed the way he has played. Its only one game and i think Ball will get much better, in fact i liked the way he ran last year when spelling Moreno. But the other night he didnt look like the guy from the year before so all im saying is you can go from game to game and one back might actually be having more success than another. Thats all im getting at.

Joel
09-09-2014, 03:35 PM
I think you are just misinterpreting my stance on Ball. Im not saying he sucks by any means. As someone pointed out he just came off an injury so maybe some what we saw was do to that i dont know. My stance on Moreno has changed entirely since he changed the way he has played. Its only one game and i think Ball will get much better, in fact i liked the way he ran last year when spelling Moreno. But the other night he didnt look like the guy from the year before so all im saying is you can go from game to game and one back might actually be having more success than another. Thats all im getting at.
Everyone has off days, but Ball looked OK to me; he broke tons of tackles and got extra yards: But far too many were on the WRONG side of the LoS. Too many defenders were too often in our backfield at the snap, and ANY back will need a HoF kind of day to get much out of that. If it happens much more, we'll probably see more Anderson, but it probably won't make much difference.

Funny thing is, on one of the few occasions the line DID give him a nice lane (early in the first half) he DIDN'T quite break a tackle and got tripped up with nothing else between him and the end zone except a CB ably blocked by one of our receivers. Thanks to the nice lane though, he'd already gotten about 15 yds before anyone touched him; I think it was the longest run by ANY Bronco all night. The one where he got swiped at the ankles and everyone held their breath because he stayed down for a few seconds, but on the replay it was clear why: He ALMOST had a long TD run, and knew it.

Hawgdriver
09-09-2014, 10:50 PM
Joel, I'm surprised you haven't asked the mods to change the thread title to "the bad and the bad."

Just sayin. Love ya buddy.

BeefStew25
09-09-2014, 10:51 PM
Joel, I'm surprised you haven't asked the mods to change the thread title to "the bad and the bad."

Just sayin. Love ya buddy.

Joel sits in his titanium tub and rains hell down on the rest of us.

Hawgdriver
09-09-2014, 10:58 PM
Joel sits in his titanium tub and rains hell down on the rest of us.

Are any of those beers left?

Simple Jaded
09-09-2014, 11:04 PM
I just don't want to debate which of our promising young RBs should be thrown to the wolves: Whoever wins that contest loses until/unless we run block.

Exactly, cause as we all know you have to be completely ******* ordinary (or worse) in every conceivable way to be any good at RB in Denver's offense, ie, Knowshon Moreno. Typical Joel, only the players you like are worthy of playing for your (4th or 5th) favorite team.

Perhaps with a little hard work Montee Ball could play for your favorite European team.

BeefStew25
09-09-2014, 11:05 PM
Are any of those beers left?

I have some snap shots in the fridge. MMMMMMMM.

I am on a Kona kick of late. I am a sucker for a yummy variety pack.

Hawgdriver
09-09-2014, 11:10 PM
I have some snap shots in the fridge. MMMMMMMM.

I am on a Kona kick of late. I am a sucker for a yummy variety pack.

I knew better than to ask. Now I'm cravin.

Cugel
09-10-2014, 06:16 AM
You won't have to look long: He broke a lot of tackles, but most were at or behind the line. Oddly enough, it looked like Ramirez and Vasquez opened a pretty nice hole on the TD that he skipped right past to bounce off Clark and a couple Colts before diving in on the left, but the whole "happy feet" and "hesitancy" thing is mostly a product of expecting to get hit almost at the handoff, IMHO, just as it was when people condemned Moreno for the EXACT SAME THINGS throughout his Denver career. He didn't look hesistant or happy-footed running for 5.6/carry and >100 total against a rebuilt NE D today.

Frankly, I think Morenos breakout year was mainly due to him saying, "to Hell with it," accepting his line would leave him hanging, and simply resigning himself to breaking as many tackles and carrying defenders as far as he could before they dragged him down; it doesn't do a lot of good to make "the first man miss" if there's 3 more right behind him. A back whose line makes him ACCUSTOMED to that gets hesistant happy feet in a hurry though. Want a running game, either get Barry Sanders or starting quality Gs, not failed RGs, failed RTs and converted DTs. I like Vasquez, but that's about it inside.

I WILL grant that, and it was a welcome change. Still not thrilled about the 3.2 average, but if we get that CONSISTENTLY enough 3rd and 2 isn't automatically a passing down anymore, I'll sleep far better.

It's interesting that Alfred Williams kept saying that he doesn't like the scheme, that he thinks the zone blocking system many NFL teams use is better because when the power blocking system the team uses makes it "easy for defenders to be in the right position to make a tackle." Whereas in the ZBS if the RB makes one guy miss it can lead to a big play. It sure seems that way - that teams are always in position to make a play on Denver's running back. On the other hand the current system is better for play-action passing game that Manning likes.

Most coaches just don't coach the ZBS though. It's rather like Dan Reeves saying contemptuously "I don't coach the run and shoot."

Whatever the reason, Denver has never had a really good running game since they got rid of that system. Remember when Shanny used to find a bunch of 7th round RBs and turn them into 1000+ yards guys seemingly every year? Then they'd go to another team for more money and you'd never see them do anything ever again, but Denver would just replace them with someone new?

TXBRONC
09-10-2014, 06:40 AM
I think we have to remember that was Ball's first significant action. After his surgery, he got like what, four or five carries in the preseason?

I still have faith in him. Not so much with Hillman, and would like to see more of CJ and Juwan.

Exactly.

TXBRONC
09-10-2014, 06:43 AM
Joel, I'm surprised you haven't asked the mods to change the thread title to "the bad and the bad."

Just sayin. Love ya buddy.

No it should be changed "The bad, the worse, and the putrid."

Joel
09-10-2014, 09:12 AM
Exactly, cause as we all know you have to be completely ******* ordinary (or worse) in every conceivable way to be any good at RB in Denver's offense, ie, Knowshon Moreno. Typical Joel, only the players you like are worthy of playing for your (4th or 5th) favorite team.

Perhaps with a little hard work Montee Ball could play for your favorite European team.
I keep re-reading what I wrote trying to figure how on Earth it can be viewed as a slam on Ball or ANY of our RBs. I don't know how many times I have to say, "Ball ran well, breaking lots of tackles, but our line made him do it on the WRONG SIDE of the LoS, so 5 extra yards translated into 2nd and 8," before it's clear I don't think the BACKS are the problem. Try responding to what I wrote rather than what you WISH I'd wrote; if nothing else, the novelty would be nice. Same goes for that crack about Denver being my 4th favorite team; I don't hang out on any other teams fan sites.

Joel
09-10-2014, 09:25 AM
It's interesting that Alfred Williams kept saying that he doesn't like the scheme, that he thinks the zone blocking system many NFL teams use is better because when the power blocking system the team uses makes it "easy for defenders to be in the right position to make a tackle." Whereas in the ZBS if the RB makes one guy miss it can lead to a big play. It sure seems that way - that teams are always in position to make a play on Denver's running back. On the other hand the current system is better for play-action passing game that Manning likes.

Most coaches just don't coach the ZBS though. It's rather like Dan Reeves saying contemptuously "I don't coach the run and shoot."

Whatever the reason, Denver has never had a really good running game since they got rid of that system. Remember when Shanny used to find a bunch of 7th round RBs and turn them into 1000+ yards guys seemingly every year? Then they'd go to another team for more money and you'd never see them do anything ever again, but Denver would just replace them with someone new?
For what it's worth, the NFL's progressively changed the rules since our SB repeats to make the ZBS a lot harder to do (mainly, cut blocks are FAR more restricted now.) And the one thing our ZBS NEVER did well after Davis retired was also the ONE thing our blockers DID do well SUnday: Convert short yardage thanks to solid line surge. If it's 3rd and 2 and the line pushes the front seven back 2 yds, even I can run for a first down. But my favorite team (until it ceased to exist) brought the Run 'n Shoot to the NFL, so I know too well why Reeves didn't run it:

Because of stuff like the Comeback, which looked a HELL of a lot like the game we played Sunday. Pass your way to a huge lead, then try to kill the clock with your running game, realize you CAN'T, and go back to trying to pass your way out of 2nd/3rd and long with the D KNOWING you will and every incomplete stopping the clock. The Run 'n Shoot's great for building or overcoming leads—but it SUCKS at protecting them. That's why the Bills made up 32 pts in less than one half even with Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas benched with injuries.

The running game remains vital to championships; just ask Elway. If nothing else, one-dimensional offenses (be they running or passing) does half the Ds job for them.

Hawgdriver
09-10-2014, 10:11 AM
That's one thing I will never understand. The idea of "protecting" leads. Seems you should always play the highest expected value play, the one that will put the most points on the board. Not the one that minimizes the opponent's EV.

If the highest EV play is a run because you both score AND keep the opponent from scoring--awesome. But most important is that you score.

Always most important. That you score.

Joel
09-10-2014, 11:45 AM
That's one thing I will never understand. The idea of "protecting" leads. Seems you should always play the highest expected value play, the one that will put the most points on the board. Not the one that minimizes the opponent's EV.

If the highest EV play is a run because you both score AND keep the opponent from scoring--awesome. But most important is that you score.

Always most important. That you score.
Expected Value is probability*payoff though; if teams still went with the highest EV play every time, they'd still run a lot more than they pass, because, statistically, passing has 3X the risk for about 1.5X the reward. It's not even close: 2 more yds/play and an extra TD every other game for triple the turnovers? Is that even a choice? When the NFL rushing average has been right at 4.2 EVERY season for the last two DECADES or more? 4.2+4.2+4.2 until the team runs out of field and kicks its PAT; why put the ball up for grabs when the EV is only HALF a runs?

Because a team down 10 pts with 5:00 left doesn't have time to reach the end zone 4.2 yds at a time. Same reason a team UP that much that late is all over those 4.2 yd gains that protect possession, kill the clock, sideline Captain Comeback and keep their D fresh and ready to sprint the field against those Hail Maries when the other side DOES inevitably get the ball again. There's more to winning the down and Win Probability than just EV, but even if there weren't, running would still have a MUCH higher EV than passing. Running 2:00 Drills in the 1st qtr is tantamount to admitting the opponent's FAR better.

Simple Jaded
09-10-2014, 01:01 PM
I keep re-reading what I wrote trying to figure how on Earth it can be viewed as a slam on Ball or ANY of our RBs. I don't know how many times I have to say, "Ball ran well, breaking lots of tackles, but our line made him do it on the WRONG SIDE of the LoS, so 5 extra yards translated into 2nd and 8," before it's clear I don't think the BACKS are the problem. Try responding to what I wrote rather than what you WISH I'd wrote; if nothing else, the novelty would be nice. Same goes for that crack about Denver being my 4th favorite team; I don't hang out on any other teams fan sites.
I'm responding to what you've wrote over the last couple year.

Comparing any RB to a scrub like Moreno is an insult, especially after one game in an age where the only tangible work you get in the running game is in an actual game. Moreno, after all, had 9 carries for 28 yards in the first game of 2013, yet he went on the have a good season, even behind the OL you love to hate so much.

As for Broncos being your 4th-5th favorite, your words, not mine, you seen to have jumped from team to team over the years. My guess is you'll move on when you've had enough of the Broncos not doing what you insist they should.

Joel
09-10-2014, 01:17 PM
I'm responding to what you've wrote over the last couple year.

Comparing any RB to a scrub like Moreno is an insult, especially after one game in an age where the only tangible work you get in the running game is in an actual game. Moreno, after all, had 9 carries for 28 yards in the first game of 2013, yet he went on the have a good season, even behind the OL you love to hate so much.

As for Broncos being your 4th-5th favorite, your words, not mine, you seen to have jumped from team to team over the years. My guess is you'll move on when you've had enough of the Broncos not doing what you insist they should.
When did I say Denver was my 4th-5th favorite? I said my hometown Oilers were my favorite from childhood—but they LEFT town in '97 and ENTIRELY ceased to exist in '99, so I needed a new favorite. And I REALLY liked how Denver ran their offensive line back then, so, despite the shocker in the '96 playoffs, I "hopped on the bandwagon" and watched them vindicate my preseason SB pick the next two years straight (and, let's face it, after the AFCs 13 year losing streak, that wasn't so much "hopping on the bandwagon" as "going out on a limb.")

I still like my hometown Texans, though less since they ceased to be "the Broncos South" when Shanny and Kubes were running the two teams, and less still since they fired Kubes AND Bum Phillips' son. I still like my dads beloved Cowboys, though Jerry and Romo make them impossible to respect. And marrying a Norwegian and moving to Norway has deepened my soft spot for the NFCs answer to the perennial choke job that was the Oilers. But I like each of them in that order and ALL of them AFTER Denver.

During our OT Turkey Day game @Dallas, my uncle (a Packers fan) was all set to give me crap about Dallas until I pointed out he wasn't the only one rooting for Denver.

So, no, you're not "responding to what you've wrote over the last couple year." I've consistently and frequently said Denver's my favorite team, AHEAD of several others I ALSO like. You cherry-picked a passing comment that I hated Elway TWENTY YEARS AGO for squashing my Oilers in The Drive II and turned it into "you hate Denver and always have; they're only your 5th favorite." You're doing exactly what I said: Responding to what you WISH I'd said, as usual. That's just whipping an elaborate strawman; it's surely loads of fun, but doesn't have a darned thing to do with me or anything I've EVER said.

broncosinindy
09-11-2014, 10:30 PM
Last but not least.......27-0. My streak continues. In the 27 regular season Broncos games that I have been to over the years, this team is 27-0. I'm expecting season tickets in my stocking from Elway-claus this year.last game I went to TD tore his ACL. Never went again lol

MOtorboat
09-11-2014, 11:56 PM
Expected Value is probability*payoff though; if teams still went with the highest EV play every time, they'd still run a lot more than they pass, because, statistically, passing has 3X the risk for about 1.5X the reward. It's not even close: 2 more yds/play and an extra TD every other game for triple the turnovers? Is that even a choice? When the NFL rushing average has been right at 4.2 EVERY season for the last two DECADES or more? 4.2+4.2+4.2 until the team runs out of field and kicks its PAT; why put the ball up for grabs when the EV is only HALF a runs?

Because a team down 10 pts with 5:00 left doesn't have time to reach the end zone 4.2 yds at a time. Same reason a team UP that much that late is all over those 4.2 yd gains that protect possession, kill the clock, sideline Captain Comeback and keep their D fresh and ready to sprint the field against those Hail Maries when the other side DOES inevitably get the ball again. There's more to winning the down and Win Probability than just EV, but even if there weren't, running would still have a MUCH higher EV than passing. Running 2:00 Drills in the 1st qtr is tantamount to admitting the opponent's FAR better.

The old adage about passing is so grossly untrue, it's not even really worth discussing. When the best quarterbacks are getting close to 70 percent completions, you're looking at a MUCH higher percentage of success than what that old adage professes.

Even 30 years ago it was wrong, it's just no one, save maybe Don Coryell and Don Shula, had figured it out yet. Walsh, obviously, knew the truth and revolutionized the game for the better.

Time to come in to the 21st century, my man.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 12:21 AM
I need a life.

Since you're going to come back at me with turnovers, here's an interesting stat:
1983:
Rushing attempts: 14,211
Fumbles: 957
Passing attempts: 14,047
Interceptions: 620

2013:
Rushing attempts: 13,871
Fumbles: 655
Passing attempts: 18,136
Interceptions: 502

So, as pass attempts have massively increased, turnovers have come down drastically.

1983: 28,258 attempts total, 1,577 turnovers
2013: 32,007 attempts total, 1,157 turnovers

The turnover rate, as passing increased went DOWN from 5.9 percent to 3.6 percent.

So, not only are teams getting more yards per attempt, they are losing less footballs.

If you could get 4.2 yards per carry with a 5.9 percent chance of turning the ball over versus 7.1 yards per attempt with a 3.6 percent chance of turning the ball over, which one would you choose?

Edit:
2013: 5.6 yards per overall attempt with a 3.6 percent turnover rate.
1983: 5.3 yards per overall attempt with a 5.9 percent turnover rate.

TXBRONC
09-12-2014, 08:44 AM
Expected Value is probability*payoff though; if teams still went with the highest EV play every time, they'd still run a lot more than they pass, because, statistically, passing has 3X the risk for about 1.5X the reward. It's not even close: 2 more yds/play and an extra TD every other game for triple the turnovers? Is that even a choice? When the NFL rushing average has been right at 4.2 EVERY season for the last two DECADES or more? 4.2+4.2+4.2 until the team runs out of field and kicks its PAT; why put the ball up for grabs when the EV is only HALF a runs?

Because a team down 10 pts with 5:00 left doesn't have time to reach the end zone 4.2 yds at a time. Same reason a team UP that much that late is all over those 4.2 yd gains that protect possession, kill the clock, sideline Captain Comeback and keep their D fresh and ready to sprint the field against those Hail Maries when the other side DOES inevitably get the ball again. There's more to winning the down and Win Probability than just EV, but even if there weren't, running would still have a MUCH higher EV than passing. Running 2:00 Drills in the 1st qtr is tantamount to admitting the opponent's FAR better.


The old adage about passing is so grossly untrue, it's not even really worth discussing. When the best quarterbacks are getting close to 70 percent completions, you're looking at a MUCH higher percentage of success than what that old adage professes.

Even 30 years ago it was wrong, it's just no one, save maybe Don Coryell and Don Shula, had figured it out yet. Walsh, obviously, knew the truth and revolutionized the game for the better.

Time to come in to the 21st century, my man.

The adage is still true, however (the other shoe drops to the floor the game has changed since the 1960s. The game is dramatically slanted towards offenses and with high usage of short and intermediate passes it makes a noticeable difference in drops and interceptions.

BroncoWave
09-12-2014, 09:07 AM
I need a life.

Since you're going to come back at me with turnovers, here's an interesting stat:
1983:
Rushing attempts: 14,211
Fumbles: 957
Passing attempts: 14,047
Interceptions: 620

2013:
Rushing attempts: 13,871
Fumbles: 655
Passing attempts: 18,136
Interceptions: 502

So, as pass attempts have massively increased, turnovers have come down drastically.

1983: 28,258 attempts total, 1,577 turnovers
2013: 32,007 attempts total, 1,157 turnovers

The turnover rate, as passing increased went DOWN from 5.9 percent to 3.6 percent.

So, not only are teams getting more yards per attempt, they are losing less footballs.

If you could get 4.2 yards per carry with a 5.9 percent chance of turning the ball over versus 7.1 yards per attempt with a 3.6 percent chance of turning the ball over, which one would you choose?

Edit:
2013: 5.6 yards per overall attempt with a 3.6 percent turnover rate.
1983: 5.3 yards per overall attempt with a 5.9 percent turnover rate.

MO, are your stats for fumbles lost or all fumbles? If it's for all fumbles, you can't count those all as turnovers.

weazel
09-12-2014, 09:56 AM
MO, are your stats for fumbles lost or all fumbles? If it's for all fumbles, you can't count those all as turnovers.

plus he would have to add drops and fumbles to the passing stats as well. I get everyone likes to skew stats for their own argument though.

I guess I will just state it one way... you stop the clock more often throwing the ball than running. Don't need any stats for that.

Joel
09-12-2014, 10:18 AM
C'mon, man: A feature back gets around 300 carries/season, and if he fumbles HALF A DOZEN, it's a huge problem; Manning (rightly) went to the Pro Bowl with about the same Int rate.

I need a life.

Since you're going to come back at me with turnovers, here's an interesting stat:
1983:
Rushing attempts: 14,211
Fumbles: 957
Passing attempts: 14,047
Interceptions: 620

2013:
Rushing attempts: 13,871
Fumbles: 655
Passing attempts: 18,136
Interceptions: 502

So, as pass attempts have massively increased, turnovers have come down drastically.

1983: 28,258 attempts total, 1,577 turnovers
2013: 32,007 attempts total, 1,157 turnovers

The turnover rate, as passing increased went DOWN from 5.9 percent to 3.6 percent.

So, not only are teams getting more yards per attempt, they are losing less footballs.

If you could get 4.2 yards per carry with a 5.9 percent chance of turning the ball over versus 7.1 yards per attempt with a 3.6 percent chance of turning the ball over, which one would you choose?

Edit:
2013: 5.6 yards per overall attempt with a 3.6 percent turnover rate.
1983: 5.3 yards per overall attempt with a 5.9 percent turnover rate.
It's not a turnover if the offense KEEPS it: Of last years 655 fumbles, the offense only lost 208—and nearly HALF were strip-sacks or fumbled catches; RUNNING BACKS only fumbled 112 times in 11,721 attempts. That's <1% turnovers for their 4.2 yds/att. Adding QB/WR fumbles increases play count just 10% (1908) yet nearly DOUBLES fumbles (208.) Most were strip-sacks like Mathis' safety last year or catches like the one Orange Julius dropped in front of THREE Colts Sunday (fortunately Caldwell fell on that one: No turnover.)

Running back fumbles: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&statisticPositionCategory=RUNNING_BACK&d-447263-s=RUSHING_FUMBLES&tabSeq=1&season=2013&Submit=Go&experience=&archive=true&conference=null&qualified=true

ALL player fumbles (including passing, punting and returning kicks/punts; notice 3 of the top 5 are QBs:) http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_FUMBLES&tabSeq=0&season=2013&Submit=Go&experience=&archive=true&statisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=null&qualified=true

Even that last one's not complete, if only because it doesn't count Mannings strip-sack-safety as a lost fumble (because we kept possession—until the free kick). Far worse, it counts end of game kneels as "rushing attempts" (we all know Manning didn't run twice/week last year.) It's VERY hard to tell passing/rushing fumbles apart by stats alone; even QB fumbles are tricky, and WR fumbles are plain hopeless unless one checks 256 play-by-plays. Also, don't forget punts snapped through the end zone and the Trindon Holliday Effect: Those aren't passing NOR rushing turnovers. Ignoring all that though, it's

Running: 11,721 attempts for 47,953 yds (4.1/att,) 338 TDs (2.9%) and 112 turnovers (<0.96%.)
Passing: 17,969 attempts for 120,272 yds (6.7/att,) 800 TDs (4.5%) and 497 turnovers (2.8%.)
So 3X the turnover rate (just like I said) for 2/3 more yards 50% more TDs.

There's some rounding there, so the totals are included for everyone who wants total precision. Walsh didn't invent the West Coast Offense because he thought passing>running; he invented it because Virgil Carter had a great brain but awful arm. The good news is that great brain (along with Robert Machols) converted yards (and thus TOs) into Expected Points the following year, so we can easily calculate EV of any given run/pass to FIND OUT if passing>running (or vice versa.)

Running= 4.1/12.5 (QBs bump the overall average to 4.2, with a ton more turnovers)+0.029*7-0.0096*4=0.49 Expected Pts/play (more precisely, 0.490934220629639)
Passing: 6.7/12.5+0.045*7-0.028*4=0.73 Expected Pts/play (more precisely, 0.734464196154918)

It's not even close; the 50% yardage increase makes almost literally all the difference (the difference between the value of expected TD and TOs is a negligible 0.04 EPs.) But remember: That ignores strip-sacks and fumbled catches (and, to be fair, fumbles by "dual-threat" QBs, who put it on the ground far more often than pure runners.) That's nearly HALF of all fumbles, so until/unless we can isolate which were runs/passes, they remain a pretty big variable. Not big enough to change EV much though; yardage is the lions share of that, so that extra 2.5 yds/att will always give passing the higher EV.

It's up to individual coaches whether THEY value 2.5 more yards and 50% more TDs per play above or below TRIPLE the turnovers. As previously noted, NEs 10 RUSHING turnovers got RBs benched; Denvers 10 PASSING turnovers sent Manning to the Pro Bowl—and that's ignoring strip-sacks producing a few TDs (plus a safety.) Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Manning for Clark giving up strip-sacks in three straight games, but that's kind of the point: Even with the BEST QB, throwing high percentage passes, turnovers are the nature of the passing beast.

That IS the comparison though: Roughly 100 fumbles to 500 Ints in not even half again more plays. 2.5 more yards and 50% more TDs/play just isn't worth that, IMHO, not when 4 yds/carry moves the chains. If it takes a little longer, so much better as long as the team's not trailing: That just gives the bad guys less time to answer the score at 6.7 yds/play.

You're right the old adage's changed: MANY things can happen on passes now, and MOST are defensive penalties for automatic first downs. That's NOT a good thing though, and has nothing to do with Walsh realizing Virgil Carter had a brilliant mind but pitiful arm. Shula was blessed with Marino, but won his SBs with a game manager QB whose primary duty was not screwing up while his hard-nosed FB lumbered for 4.2 yds/att and his anonymous D kept the game close enough that yielded historys only perfect season.

Joel
09-12-2014, 10:29 AM
The key point in all that is that even if we ignore PASSING fumbles lost (nearly HALF the total,) the passing turnover rate is 3X higher. If we count passing fumbles as just that instead of charging strip-sacks and fumbled catches to the running game, it's cause to wonder why anyone would put the ball up for grabs given a choice.

There's a good answer: I grew up on Run 'n Shoot and LOVE passing—for 10 yds, 20, 50; a TD. But as a glorified running game that gets NOTHING a third of time, causes sacks and turns the ball over THREE TIMES more than running? Not worth it: High risk should carry high reward; for low reward, low risk is far better. And killing the clock passing is suicidal, hence the Run 'n Shoot gave us The Comeback.

BroncoWave
09-12-2014, 10:31 AM
MO, are your stats for fumbles lost or all fumbles? If it's for all fumbles, you can't count those all as turnovers.

plus he would have to add drops and fumbles to the passing stats as well. I get everyone likes to skew stats for their own argument though.

I guess I will just state it one way... you stop the clock more often throwing the ball than running. Don't need any stats for that.

Yeah, would have to count qb fumbles lost as well as wr fumbles lost.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 10:34 AM
Yeah, would have to count qb fumbles lost as well as wr fumbles lost.

It does.

BroncoWave
09-12-2014, 10:40 AM
Yeah, would have to count qb fumbles lost as well as wr fumbles lost.

It does.

Did you count them with the qb turnovers?

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 10:40 AM
And if were looking at opportunity and outcome even a fumble recovered is a bad thing. If were going to say an incompletion is a "bad" thing, we must also say a fumble, whether it's lost or not, is a negative outcome as well.

You all are correct, it included all fumbles.

But the point still stands:
Turnovers:
2013: 814
1983: 1,114

Why have turnovers decreased 26.9 percent while number of plays has gone up?

Joel
09-12-2014, 10:41 AM
It does.
Yeah—against the RUN game; that's the problem: Strip-sacks and fumbled catches are PASSING (i.e. NOT running) turnovers.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 10:41 AM
Yeah—against the RUN game; that's the problem: Strip-sacks and fumbled catches are PASSING (i.e. NOT running) turnovers.

Fine. Look at it as a whole, then.

BroncoWave
09-12-2014, 10:50 AM
Yeah—against the RUN game; that's the problem: Strip-sacks and fumbled catches are PASSING (i.e. NOT running) turnovers.

Fine. Look at it as a whole, then.

That's kinda meaningless when comparing the passing and running game though. And since you only cherry-picked two years, it's hard to tell how accurately that represents the overall trends.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 10:58 AM
That's kinda meaningless when comparing the passing and running game though. And since you only cherry-picked two years, it's hard to tell how accurately that represents the overall trends.

Is it? Number of plays went up 13.3 percent. Number of runs decreased 2.4 percent, passing increased 22.5 percent.

Meanwhile, turnovers decreased 26.2 percent.

It just doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

BroncoWave
09-12-2014, 11:01 AM
That's kinda meaningless when comparing the passing and running game though. And since you only cherry-picked two years, it's hard to tell how accurately that represents the overall trends.

Is it? Number of plays went up 13.3 percent. Number of runs decreased 2.4 percent, passing increased 22.5 percent.

Meanwhile, turnovers decreased 26.2 percent.

It just doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. And like I said, I'd need to see trends from more than just two cherry-picked seasons.

I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with your stance here, I just don't know what your numbers really prove.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 11:01 AM
BTW, the interception rate has decreased from 4.4 percent to 2.8 percent, as well.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:02 AM
Running play fumble loss rate is about 50%.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 11:04 AM
Running play fumble loss rate is about 50%.

That seems about right, because when you put the ball on the ground it becomes a game of chance.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:23 AM
RUNNING BACKS only fumbled 112 times in 11,721 attempts. That's <1% turnovers for their 4.2 yds/att.

Not all 112 fumbles were turnovers. I looked at it a while back and it's something like the offense keeps possession on running play turnovers 45-55% of the time. So it would be 0.5% turnover per running back rushing attempt.

That surprised me that it was that low.

weazel
09-12-2014, 11:23 AM
And if were looking at opportunity and outcome even a fumble recovered is a bad thing. If were going to say an incompletion is a "bad" thing, we must also say a fumble, whether it's lost or not, is a negative outcome as well.

You all are correct, it included all fumbles.

But the point still stands:
Turnovers:
2013: 814
1983: 1,114

Why have turnovers decreased 26.9 percent while number of plays has gone up?

http://half-decent.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cd12013823537139.jpg

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:25 AM
I think the issue is a bit deeper about "why passing?" Because turnovers are so deadly, and it appears that passing has far more turnovers. I'm going to noodle on it, but my hunch is that it has a lot to do with 3 downs and 10 yards.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:27 AM
Not all running back rushes go for 4.1 yards, and not all passes gain 6.7 yards or whatever. I think that's important, if that makes sense.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:30 AM
Check this out. This is what I'm getting at.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2006/too-deep-zone-two-yards-time

Joel
09-12-2014, 11:31 AM
And if were looking at opportunity and outcome even a fumble recovered is a bad thing. If were going to say an incompletion is a "bad" thing, we must also say a fumble, whether it's lost or not, is a negative outcome as well.
If you want to count it as an attempt because it costs the down, fine; that's how my QBR counts fumbles, and the NFL already counts yards gained/lost. But, by the same token, counting non-turnover fumbles AS turnovers is as fair (or not) as counting incompetes as turnovers. The downs opportunity's still lost, so why is 2nd and 10 go from just an incomplete to a turnover (even though possession's maintained) just because of HOW we got there?


You all are correct, it included all fumbles.

But the point still stands:
Turnovers:
2013: 814
1983: 1,114

Why have turnovers decreased 26.9 percent while number of plays has gone up?
Dunno; how'd you come up with 5 turnovers/game in '83?

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 11:33 AM
Dunno; how'd you come up with 5 turnovers/game in '83?

Because that's what happened:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1983/

weazel
09-12-2014, 11:36 AM
basic stats are not going to help either arguement... you need all the analytical stats that teams keep for each situation. Thats why they have those guys on staff... and they are not giving out that information

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 11:40 AM
The tl;dr version of article.


Conclusions
Teams don't generate rushing yards in three-, four-, or five-yard bursts. They gain it through punctuated equilibrium, waiting through dozens of minimal gains for a few big plays per game.
And those big plays aren't that big. We've focused on gains of ten or less in this article, ignoring the 10.5 percent or so of plays that yield more yardage. The vast majority of those runs gain 11-20 yards: 6.9 percent overall. Almost 25 percent of the rushing yardage gained in the NFL is generated on runs of 11-20 yards. There were 960 such runs last year: 30 per team, or just over two per team per game. Amazingly nearly 10 percent of all rushing yardage is generated on runs of 30 or more yards, plays which occur about four times per year for a typical team.
These distribution breakdowns are so interesting that they might seduce us into making some wacky conclusions. Keep in mind that all of these averages and distribution patterns are situation dependent. We might look at the data and suggest that teams stop running the ball altogether on second-and-10, but of course the Success Rate on passing plays would dip sharply if teams stopped threatening to run. These league-wide averages don't necessarily apply to individual teams, so teams with a quality running game may have different distributions that would suggest different optimal strategies. The Bell and Anderson data, for example, indicates that the Broncos have a more versatile running game than the average team, and observation (i.e. actually watching games instead of craning over spreadsheets) bears this out.
Without further study, we shouldn't leap to grand conclusions. But we know this much: if we expect to gain four or five yards on every running play, we're going to be disappointed most of the time. No wonder passing totals have been creeping up for decades. If all a handoff gets you is two yards and a cloud of dust, you might as well throw the ball.

Joel
09-12-2014, 11:51 AM
Running play fumble loss rate is about 50%.
It was in '83 (right at 49% when THGoF crunched the numbers, and it's reliable enough for FO to base a whole site on it) but not anymore.


Not all 112 fumbles were turnovers. I looked at it a while back and it's something like the offense keeps possession on running play turnovers 45-55% of the time. So it would be 0.5% turnover per running back rushing attempt.

That surprised me that it was that low.
Except those are NFL.coms RB fumble numbers, which only counts fumbles LOST (that's why it's 112, not 665, and 208 for ALL scrimmage play fumbles; it's not like there were 457 muffed kick/punt returns last year; that'd be 3/gm.) Not counting STs, we're looking at 208 lost fumbles, and the total that OCCURRED was 665, so that's <1/3 lost. The thing to remember is that a lot (maybe most; haven't checked) fumbles happen behind the line, with a lot more offensive than defensive players around to fall on them. How many times have you seen an offensive lineman fall on a loose ball?

Downfield and/or in the open field, it's different—but how many fumbles happen there compared to botched handoffs and strip-sacks? Look at Oaklands fumble Sunday: Defender decks the RB in the backfield, ball pops out, bounces off the RBs foot into the air: And right into the hands of the guy who handed it off in the first place. There was only ONE Jet in position to even have a CHANCE at that ball, and he was too busy tackling the back, but there was a QB and 5 linemen between the ball and the rest of the Jets.


Check this out. This is what I'm getting at.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2006/too-deep-zone-two-yards-time
Right, it's the difference between a mean and a median; we can't expect every run to get exactly 4 yds, but can expect 50 to gain right at 200. And you're right it has to do with 10 yds in 3 plays: A team doesn't have to get 4 yds on EACH of those plays as long as it AVERAGES 4 yds. If it has a pair of 2 yd runs followed by a 6 yd run, that's good enough; the median's only 2, but the average is 3.3 and, most importantly, the total's 10.

That's where THGoF got "winning the down" and passed it into football parlance (oddly, I hear it more of defense than offense, though they intorduced it in offensive terms.) Football Outsiders calls it "Success Rate," but it's pretty much the same thing, except they raised the requirement by a yard for 1st and 10 and lowered it for 2nd and 7 (or 6 in their case,) probably because most teams will punt on 4th and 1 rather than go for it trusting that 4 yd average to deliver at least a yard on ONE play rather than average that over the TOTAL.

As long as the AVERAGE stays around the year in, year out LEAGUE average of 4.2 yds/att though, the team moves the chains pretty consistently, but with only a THIRD the turnovers of passing.

Joel
09-12-2014, 12:16 PM
Because that's what happened:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1983/
That page says, 1577 turnovers in '83, not 1114—because it doesn't distinguish between fumbles LOST and the rest. Believe me, I know; I like PFR a lot, but have spent a few years trying to separate QB fumbles and lost fumbles from the rest, and quickly quit using PFR for that once realizing that's how they handle it.

Also, they're the ones who told me Unrein weighs 270, and their calculation of what percentage of challenges Fox has won doesn't jibe with the individual challenges they list. It's a NICE site for a LOT of stats, but not 100% reliable for all of them; it's a good idea to double check against NFL.com or ESPN when possible.


basic stats are not going to help either arguement... you need all the analytical stats that teams keep for each situation. Thats why they have those guys on staff... and they are not giving out that information
Well, checking the play-by-play for each seasons game will clarify most of them without having to crack any team offices safes or hard drives. Pro Football Reference is really good for that because they have a lot of play-by-play records for past seasons—but not as far back as '83.

MOtorboat
09-12-2014, 12:27 PM
That page says, 1577 turnovers in '83, not 1114—because it doesn't distinguish between fumbles LOST and the rest. Believe me, I know; I like PFR a lot, but have spent a few years trying to separate QB fumbles and lost fumbles from the rest, and quickly quit using PFR for that once realizing that's how they handle it.

Also, they're the ones who told me Unrein weighs 270, and their calculation of what percentage of challenges Fox has won doesn't jibe with the individual challenges they list. It's a NICE site for a LOT of stats, but not 100% reliable for all of them; it's a good idea to double check against NFL.com or ESPN when possible.


Well, checking the play-by-play for each seasons game will clarify most of them without having to crack any team offices safes or hard drives. Pro Football Reference is really good for that because they have a lot of play-by-play records for past seasons—but not as far back as '83.

I have no clue what you're looking at:

5520

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 12:52 PM
I present stats, for no good reason at all:

San Francisco and Seattle basically ran the same offense last year if you look only at results.

SF ran 505 times last season, SEA 509. SF averaged 4.4, SEA 4.3. SF running backs fumbled 4 times, SEA 3 times (talk about maintaining possession!).

SF threw it 417 times, SEA 420. SF threw 8 interceptions, SEA 9. Here is where they differ: SF yards/attempt was 7.7, SEA 8.4 (! best in league).

SF scored on 38% of drives, SEA 41%. SF turned the ball over on 9% of drives, SEA also 9%.

Let's compare to Denver.

Denver ran 461, averaging 4.1 with 5 running back fumbles. Denver threw it 675 times with a 8.2 yard/attempt result and 10 interceptions. They scored 48% of drives, and turned it over 10% of drives.

The glaring difference is what you'd expect: the run to pass play ratio is 55% for SF and SEA, 40% for Denver.

Joel
09-12-2014, 12:54 PM
I have no clue what you're looking at:
Ah, OK; thanks. Then I'll hazard a guess the difference is that the percentage of passes picked AND fumbles lost went down in the last 30 years. From 4.4% to 2.8% Ints and 496 fumbles lost out of 957 (well over 50%) to 208 out of 655 (well below 33%.) We went from 620 Ints to 502, and that's a big improvement—but going from 496 lost fumbles to 208 is kinda big, too. And, again, that's counting a lot of strip-sacks and fumbled catches (which make up nearly half the total.) RUNNING BACKS fumbled 112 times in 256 games last year. That's less than every other game.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 12:57 PM
Is there an easy way to reply with the embedded quotes included so you can really go big with your pissing contest?

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 01:03 PM
Except those are NFL.coms RB fumble numbers, which only counts fumbles LOST

So Reggie Bush fumbled 5 times and lost 4. Why does it show 5 under the fumbles column instead of 4?

Joel
09-12-2014, 01:07 PM
I present stats, for no good reason at all:

San Francisco and Seattle basically ran the same offense last year if you look only at results.

SF ran 505 times last season, SEA 509. SF averaged 4.4, SEA 4.3. SF running backs fumbled 4 times, SEA 3 times (talk about maintaining possession!).

SF threw it 417 times, SEA 420. SF threw 8 interceptions, SEA 9. Here is where they differ: SF yards/attempt was 7.7, SEA 8.4 (! best in league).

SF scored on 38% of drives, SEA 41%. SF turned the ball over on 9% of drives, SEA also 9%.

Let's compare to Denver.

Denver ran 461, averaging 4.1 with 5 running back fumbles. Denver threw it 675 times with a 8.2 yard/attempt result and 10 interceptions. They scored 48% of drives, and turned it over 10% of drives.

The glaring difference is what you'd expect: the run to pass play ratio is 55% for SF and SEA, 40% for Denver.
It's also worth noting that, while Seattle threw less, they swung for the fences when they did, so their YPA was higher than us and EVERYONE. Honestly, if they weren't total douchebags about it, I'd probably love them: They run first, play smothering D, make their few passes count big, and have a QB who can run as easily as he passes. Without the PEDs and cheap shots, that would be my ideal modern team.

Two other things to note though: Denvers fast-moving offense had >200 more plays than Seattle and SF, a huge 20% increase, which meant more scores and turnovers—but Manning ALONE fumbled more than ALL our RBs, and those turnover stats don't reflect that. Counting those increases our TOs (and thus TO%) by 33%. Those numbers make a huge difference, but are very elusive. The best I've been able to do is check NFL.com for each QBs fumbles (at least they list the total and number lost,) but that says nothing about fumbled catches.

Joel
09-12-2014, 01:12 PM
So Reggie Bush fumbled 5 times and lost 4. Why does it show 5 under the fumbles column instead of 4?
Huh, you're right; guess it's back to clicking each and every players name to see how many fumbles they actually lost. Which incidentally means that 112 number is way too high, so the passing turnover percentage is much more than three times the rushing turnover rate. I'll deal with those totals later though; I've got a big birthday tomorrow, an infant who could wake up any time and need to renew my license from across an ocean, so I'm a bit cramped for time. ;)

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 01:16 PM
Aite.


It was in '83 (right at 49% when THGoF crunched the numbers, and it's reliable enough for FO to base a whole site on it) but not anymore.

I don't know what '83, THGoF, and all that is. Do you have data showing it's not ~50%? I'm basing it off research I did last year. I wanted to measure the effect of a Trindon Holiday fumble vs. any other fumble. Not that it matters much, really, anyway.


Right, it's the difference between a mean and a median; we can't expect every run to get exactly 4 yds, but can expect 50 to gain right at 200. And you're right it has to do with 10 yds in 3 plays: A team doesn't have to get 4 yds on EACH of those plays as long as it AVERAGES 4 yds. If it has a pair of 2 yd runs followed by a 6 yd run, that's good enough; the median's only 2, but the average is 3.3 and, most importantly, the total's 10.

That's where THGoF got "winning the down" and passed it into football parlance (oddly, I hear it more of defense than offense, though they intorduced it in offensive terms.) Football Outsiders calls it "Success Rate," but it's pretty much the same thing, except they raised the requirement by a yard for 1st and 10 and lowered it for 2nd and 7 (or 6 in their case,) probably because most teams will punt on 4th and 1 rather than go for it trusting that 4 yd average to deliver at least a yard on ONE play rather than average that over the TOTAL.

As long as the AVERAGE stays around the year in, year out LEAGUE average of 4.2 yds/att though, the team moves the chains pretty consistently, but with only a THIRD the turnovers of passing.

Running the ball results in punts much more than passing the ball. If your QB throws picks or gets strip sacked a lot or whatevs, running the ball turns it over less often. Ok, great. Got it.

In Denver's case you score more points by passing more, and your overall drives ending in turnover % is about the same as a run-heavy team. Why pass on points?

Is your point that Denver should run more, or that other teams should run more/get better quarterbacks?

I need to get a life too.

Joel
09-12-2014, 01:44 PM
Aite.

I don't know what '83, THGoF, and all that is. Do you have data showing it's not ~50%? I'm basing it off research I did last year. I wanted to measure the effect of a Trindon Holiday fumble vs. any other fumble. Not that it matters much, really, anyway.
'83 is shorthand for the 1983 season; THGoF is the abbreviation for The Hidden Game of Football, which Football Outsiders cites as their inspiration and Wikipedia calls "the first systematic statistical approach to analyzing American football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football) in a book and is still considered the seminal work on the topic." Think of it as Sabermetrics for football (Official MLB Historian John Thorn co-authored it, and I HIGHLY recommend it, even if I also blame it for fantasy footballs existence.) THGoF actually DID compile play-by-play for the '83-'86 seasons, producing many insights.

They also included several tables at the end, one of which is per-game averages for each season; in 1983, the percentage of fumbles lost was 49%, as close to half as makes no difference. I concluded it's not 50% NOW because there were 655 fumbles in 2013 but only 208 of them were turnovers, which <33%—but that was using NFL.coms list of scrimmage play fumbles (208) which you helpfully pointed out counts all fumbles recovered by the offense, so it turns out the percentage of fumbles lost is EVEN LOWER.


Running the ball results in punts much more than passing the ball. If your QB throws picks or gets strip sacked a lot or whatevs, running the ball turns it over less often. Ok, great. Got it.
NO (and this is a KEY point:) Running the ball turns it over FAR less often WHETHER OR NOT THE QB HAS DISPROPORTIONATE INTS/STRIP-SACKS. Peyton Manning's not fumble prone or scattershot: He STILL had THREE TIMES the turnovers of our backs—even with Hillman and Anderson in the doghouse for turnovers. A pass is several times more likely than a run to be a turnover PERIOD (though a fumble prone/scattershot QB will certainly raise those numbers even higher.)


In Denver's case you score more points by passing more, and your overall drives ending in turnover % is about the same as a run-heavy team. Why pass on points?
Sure—if we ignore the strip-sack of Manning that scored Indy 9 pts in a game we lost by 6, but that's kind of a big deal, isn't it? And not just because it was nearly 10% of ALL our TOs.


Is your point that Denver should run more, or that other teams should run more/get better quarterbacks?
That Denver should run more AND average more than a FULL YARD BELOW THE LEAGUE AVERAGE. And also that when we (or anyone) DO pass, we should go deeper downfield; another difference between the '83 and '13 stats is that—even with completion percentages skyrocketing and Int percentages plumming—NFL yds/att went DOWN from 7.2 to 7.1. We're passing a lot more than ever, so the totals are up, but the passing AVERAGE was more in ground-n-pound 1983 than pass-happy 2013.


I need to get a life too.
I feel your pain; I'll get back to you on total fumbles lost out of total committed, as time permits....

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 01:54 PM
Joel, your comment on this--2013 Denver drives ending in turnovers %: 10. Seattle/SF: 9%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/#drives::6

Joel
09-12-2014, 02:07 PM
Joel, your comment on this--2013 Denver drives ending in turnovers %: 10. Seattle/SF: 9%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/#drives::6
The PFR isn't always reliable: That page lists us with 675 passes, 461 runs, 66 punts 26 FG attempts and 1182 offensive plays; 675+461+66+26=1228=/=1182. Remember all the folks laughing when I said Unrein's 270 lbs.? We can thank PFR for that one, too. I like the site a lot, but only for stats I can indepedently verify with reliable sites.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 02:17 PM
The PFR isn't always reliable: That page lists us with 675 passes, 461 runs, 66 punts 26 FG attempts and 1182 offensive plays; 675+461+66+26=1228=/=1182. Remember all the folks laughing when I said Unrein's 270 lbs.? We can thank PFR for that one, too. I like the site a lot, but only for stats I can indepedently verify with reliable sites.

You left out penalties.

So assuming the drives ending in turnover stat is accurate at 10% for Denver vs. SEA/SF 9%, why not pass 60% of the time like they did last year? Surely they would be leaving points on the table if they did not, right?

I'll just get to my point--I don't want the Broncos to run more. I want them to demonstrate the ability to run nasty, and close out games with a punishing attitude. I'm not liking what I'm hearing about lack of conditioning on both sides of the ball.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 02:20 PM
I like the site a lot, but only for stats I can indepedently verify with reliable sites.

So if those stats were...say,,, a damning video, you'd rely on law enforcement officials, right?

Joel
09-12-2014, 03:41 PM
You left out penalties.
Penalties aren't plays: They're penalties; they may replace a play or be tacked onto one, but don't as plays themselves.


So assuming the drives ending in turnover stat is accurate at 10% for Denver vs. SEA/SF 9%, why not pass 60% of the time like they did last year? Surely they would be leaving points on the table if they did not, right?
We can't assume that though: Either PFRs play selection count is wrong, or its total play count is; one changes the percentage of drives ending in turnovers, the other changes the run/pass percentage.

As for leaving points on the field, bear in mind that while our fast-pace offense was running 200 more scrimmage plays, our OPPONENTS were running more plays, too, so it's as fair to say Seattle took opponent points OFF the field as it is to say they left some of their own. It's not the drives, nor even the score, but what one does with their drives and whether they score more than the other side. If a team's gonna run lots of 2:00 drives, it BETTER score rather than punt on most of them, because their D gets no rest and the other team gets the ball either way.

If we're forcing teams to throw lots of Hail Maries, I want to minimize their chances to get lucky (I want to do that regardless; hitting on an 80 yd bomb just hurts a lot more than hitting on an 8 yd draw.)


I'll just get to my point--I don't want the Broncos to run more. I want them to demonstrate the ability to run nasty, and close out games with a punishing attitude. I'm not liking what I'm hearing about lack of conditioning on both sides of the ball.
I want them to do both; given the choice between an 7% chance of winning 73-0 or a 73% chance of winning by 7, I'll take the latter every day of fthe week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday. But if we're running nasty, we'll close out a LOT of games on the ground, because that how teams that CAN run DO close out games they're leading. Triple the turnovers is always a bad idea, but when a teams up multiple scores late, it needs to avoid turnovers and kill clock a lot more than it needs yet even still more points.

There's only one way to win a game: Outscore the opponent. There are, however, two (not mutually exclusive) ways to do that; either score too much to be caught, or don't let the other guys score. Once a team's done the first one, further scoring is marginal returns, and their primary goal is PREVENTING the other team scoring. That means avoiding turnovers and keeping the chains and clock moving.

Think of it this way: You're up 10 pts midway through the 4th and throw an 80 yd bomb to make it 17 in just 0:15. You've still got to kickoff, the other teams still got to throw deep fast, and if that scores they're still gonna kickoff onside and try to do it again. Your TD just fast-forwarded to their chance for all that, burning NO time in the interim. If it were still the 1st quarter, that might be worth it—but it's not, and, up 10 with 5:00 left, a drive that burns 5:00 and scores NO points is better than one that burns 0:05 and scores 7. One wins the game; the other just increases an existing lead.

Or put it in Win Probability terms, if only as a further homage to THGoF inventing THAT, too. Seriously, any fan who's not read that book should remedy the oversight yesterday.

Joel
09-12-2014, 03:46 PM
So if those stats were...say,,, a damning video, you'd rely on law enforcement officials, right?
"Back, and to the left... back, and to the left...." Oh, and the crosshairs on the Moon Landing photos prove the whole thing was faked in the Mojave. I wouldn't take the law enforcement account at face value, but I'd DARNED sure get a reliable knowledgeable third-partys verification of the video before taking it to the bank. Particularly if it came from a source proven inaccurate on multiple other topics.

BroncoJoe
09-12-2014, 04:46 PM
WTF happened in here?

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 05:27 PM
Go back and read. I dare you.

The gist of it is that someone said they wanted to see the Broncos run the ball better than they did vs. Indy. This turned out to be a spark for a motherlode of Joel-tinder. Joel thinks all plays should be runs because you don't turn the ball over. MO applied science to disprove this but spilled some acid so his experiment didn't quite science out. But then the acid splashed onto Joel and he grew and mutated out of control like if DNA was words and there needed to be a million more of em. I came by and cropdusted in hopes of containing the wildfire but it turns out my cropdust was a catalyst for the Joelmeba. The word-governor on the message board tilted and broke, and the Joelmeba now has the Center for Jabber Control in a state of panic.

I advise you flee before it is too late.

TXBRONC
09-12-2014, 05:39 PM
Go back and read. I dare you.

The gist of it is that someone said they wanted to see the Broncos run the ball better than they did vs. Indy. This turned out to be a spark for a motherlode of Joel-tinder. Joel thinks all plays should be runs because you don't turn the ball over. MO applied science to disprove this but spilled some acid so his experiment didn't quite science out. But then the acid splashed onto Joel and he grew and mutated out of control like if DNA was words and there needed to be a million more of em. I came by and cropdusted in hopes of containing the wildfire but it turns out my cropdust was a catalyst for the Joelmeba. The word-governor on the message board tilted and broke, and the Joelmeba now has the Center for Jabber Control in a state of panic.

I advise you flee before it is too late.

All you had to do is say was say Joel and that pretty much explains everything.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 05:45 PM
Penalties aren't plays: They're penalties; they may replace a play or be tacked onto one, but don't as plays themselves.

Irrespective of your musings on the Platonic essence of The Penalty, penalty plays are included in PFR's drive stats. It's apples to apples with other teams. It explains why the total plays is higher than you mathed.

Running the ball may result in less turnovers, but it also results in a lower percentage of scoring drives. In the case of the Broncos, who passed 60% vs. the 45% of Seattle/San Fran, the percentage of drives ending in turnover was nearly the same. Seems like passing is the right option to me.

I guess you think PFR is not credible evidence because they didn't update Unrein's weight. If that's the case we are done here.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 05:46 PM
All you had to do is say was say Joel and that pretty much explains everything.

FsqJFIJ5lLs

Joel
09-12-2014, 05:54 PM
I never said all plays should be runs, only that MOST should, because of the risk/reward ratio. Further, most passes should be for big chunks, not glorified running plays that triple risk for 50% more reward. One things MOs 1983/2013 comparison reveals is that—even with much higher completion and much lower interception rates—passing yds/att has FALLEN. Speaking of which, PFRs NET passing yds/att (i.e. with sacks counted) was just 6.2 yds last year: Barely 2 yds better than running, for several times the turnover risk. Absent a TD, FG range or at least a CONVERSION, that's just not worth it to me.

Like I said, I grew up with Warren Moon and a cast of a thousand WRs slinging it all over the field; I love passing—for REWARDS increasing in proportion to RISK. I don't like doing it with a big second half lead though, because my Run 'n Shoot Oilers' inability caused the largest comeback in NFL history, in the PLAYOFFS, with Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas out hurt. Passing won it—for the WRONG TEAM. Fortunately, our D was good enough for a couple goal line stands and a three-and-out that got us the ball on Indys 48 so the offense could string together a couple first downs and the game-winning score.

Our offense looked like the 1992 playoffs all over again: Jump out to a huge halftime lead, try to kill the clock running in the second half, fail, then go back to passing in desperation only to realize the OTHER guys also noticed you can't run and remember what to call on 3rd and long, so your 1:00 drives give them the ball with plenty of time make up lots of points. Call it "The Flashback."

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 05:56 PM
You might be right in general but I don't think that's relevant to the 2013/2014 Broncos.

Joel
09-12-2014, 06:06 PM
Irrespective of your musings on the Platonic essence of The Penalty, penalty plays are included in PFR's drive stats. It's apples to apples with other teams. It explains why the total plays is higher than you mathed.
Except IT'S NOT: Their drive listing says we had 1182 offensive plays (of ANY kind,) but when you add up all the runs, passes, punts and FG attempts they say we had, it comes to >1200. Counting penalties would just drive that second number higher, making either it or the first one more inaccurate. "Two men say they're Jesus; one of them MUST be wrong." Which one did they goof?


Running the ball may result in less turnovers, but it also results in a lower percentage of scoring drives. In the case of the Broncos, who passed 60% vs. the 45% of Seattle/San Fran, the percentage of drives ending in turnover was nearly the same. Seems like passing is the right option to me.
Except we don't know that, because their drive total lists us (and everyone) with one number of plays, but their passing/rushing offense totals lists us with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT number of plays.

ONE of those stats is necessarily wrong; our 2013 plays can't be both 1182 AND 1182+x: It must be one or the other (though neither's a real possibility at this point.)


I guess you think PFR is not credible evidence because they didn't update Unrein's weight. If that's the case we are done here.
No, I KNOW they're unreliable because they LIST TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR THE SAME STAT. Posting a weight for Unrein that NO ONE could find listed ANYWHERE else just gave cause to suspect.

Joel
09-12-2014, 06:10 PM
You might be right in general but I don't think that's relevant to the 2013/2014 Broncos.
Oh? Denverite Exceptionalism? What percentage of our drives and Seattles ended in turnovers in the SB? It was pretty relevant there.

Hawgdriver
09-12-2014, 06:23 PM
Denver is exceptional.

TXBRONC
09-12-2014, 07:50 PM
FsqJFIJ5lLs

That is one of my favorite movies and I love that scene.

MOtorboat
09-13-2014, 01:11 AM
Go back and read. I dare you.

The gist of it is that someone said they wanted to see the Broncos run the ball better than they did vs. Indy. This turned out to be a spark for a motherlode of Joel-tinder. Joel thinks all plays should be runs because you don't turn the ball over. MO applied science to disprove this but spilled some acid so his experiment didn't quite science out. But then the acid splashed onto Joel and he grew and mutated out of control like if DNA was words and there needed to be a million more of em. I came by and cropdusted in hopes of containing the wildfire but it turns out my cropdust was a catalyst for the Joelmeba. The word-governor on the message board tilted and broke, and the Joelmeba now has the Center for Jabber Control in a state of panic.

I advise you flee before it is too late.

Awesome.

broncosinindy
09-14-2014, 12:19 PM
All you had to do is say was say Joel and that pretty much explains everything.I don't know if he always posts like that. I'll give props for bringing a argument and back it up...

BroncoJoe
09-15-2014, 04:41 PM
I don't know if he always posts like that. I'll give props for bringing a argument and back it up...

Of course you would. Damned be the facts!