PDA

View Full Version : Klis: Super advice for Denver Broncos: Throw the ball!



Denver Native (Carol)
09-28-2014, 07:16 PM
Mike Trout is not asked to bunt. No coach would ever order LeBron James to shoot left-handed. Matt Duchene and Ryan O'Reilly are not required to brawl.

So why is a team with Peyton Manning as its quarterback trying to run the ball?

Bullhorned suggestion to the Broncos: Put it up! Enough already, with a clump of Sports Authority Field at Mile High dust and second-and-12. The Broncos can't run the ball for the same reason a politician can't resist smearing an opponent during an election year: It's not who they are.

Manning doesn't take the snap from under center so the running back can get the handoff with two steps of momentum. He's primarily positioned in the shotgun from where the running back gets a standing start. The Broncos' offensive linemen aren't leaning 300-plus pounds of bloodstream into their three-point stances. They're usually sitting back on their haunches, a position of passivity not aggression.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26619496/super-advice-denver-broncos-throw-ball

Northman
09-28-2014, 07:17 PM
Yea, throw it. But throw it farther than 5 yds please.

tripp
09-28-2014, 07:22 PM
While I think most guys on the Broncos spent their Bye week sitting on a beach, I hardly think Manning or Gase did that. I think they went over the playbook and tweaked certain plays. I think things are going to change against Cardinals.

Simple Jaded
09-28-2014, 08:21 PM
Manning was in Georgia watching the Vols give Uga all they can handle.

As for the article, Klis is an idiot.

elsid13
09-28-2014, 08:35 PM
He's right. Fox freaked about the Superbowl lost and now is trying to play everything tight to the vest, let the offense do what it does best. It easy to change when you fail but it harder to stay the course when there is a set back.

Joel
09-28-2014, 08:44 PM
The Broncos' offensive linemen aren't leaning 300-plus pounds of bloodstream into their three-point stances. They're usually sitting back on their haunches, a position of passivity not aggression.
Ever stop and think that's the REAL problem? A 43-8 problem?


The best linemen up front — Ryan Clady and Louis Vasquez — got their money through pass protection, not run blocking. The tight end Thomas is a better receiving threat than blocker.
Why must it be one or the other? Sure, Clady gets paid to protect Mannings blindside, just as he has for all but one Denver QB—but he's every bit as good a run blocker; he manages to grade roads just as effectively as Franklin but without the heavy feet that makes Franklin such a liability at T. Sure, Vasquez pass blocks better than he run blocks—but he's not a BAD run blocker, just an elite pass blocker. I love Orange Julius' potency in the passing game, but if he's just a fast, soft-handed 250 lb. WR, let's overrule his college coach and MAKE him one instead of trying to make him a TE.

I do agree with this much: We can't schizophrenically sell out on pass blocking at the expense of run blocking yet try to force quality run blocking on that. If we want smashmouth guards who shove back DTs and pull to block in the open field, we'll have to pursue them as aggressively as we pursued Vasquez for his pass blocking: Converting a DT and failed RT to Gs won't cut it, and, while Ramirez has been a pretty good C (with the notable exception of the SBs first play) he was such an AWFUL G we stuck Kuper back out there in the playoffs even after the piece of metal attaching his foot to his leg tore loose.

We tried the "screw the run, just throw it" game in the SB and got blown out by 5 TDs. No first downs till the SECOND quarter; no points till the LAST play of the THIRD. Two Ints (including a pick-six) and a strip-sack. Seattle was basically built to beat teams like ours, and the League lets them get away with an incredible amount of PEDs and dirty hits that would get anyone else banned for life, but regardless of all that we must still keep defenses honest so the defensive lines can't pin their ears back and charge Manning while their LBs and DBs play 2-on-1 vs. our receivers.

All the other reasons to run—and there are PLENTY, especially with a second half lead when we need to kill the clock, sideline gunslingers attempting comebacks, avoid turnovers, and tire opposing defenses while resting ours so our pass rushers can keep sprinting toward the QB while everyone else sprints downfield to knock down Hail Mary after Hail Mary—ALL that stuff takes a backseat to not doing the defenses job FOR them by telling them the play BEFORE WE EVEN RUN IT. Seattle's not the only ones who've watched film and practiced our bubble screens and "rub" (i.e. pick) plays.

The reality is that if our elite offense truly is an elite OFFENSE rather than just elite PASSING, we can run effectively. If not, we should get used to seeing opponents march over us en route to championships we're not good enough to win. Elway and Marino were elite first ballot HoF QBs, too: How many SBs did they win without a running game to relieve some pressure? I count 0-4 before the ZBS.

Shazam!
09-28-2014, 10:10 PM
Running game and D still wins championships. That is all.

tripp
09-28-2014, 10:50 PM
This Bye week has also made me realize how much I love the Broncos, just isn't the same without them playing. I've been in limbo this Sunday.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 12:38 AM
Ever stop and think that's the REAL problem? A 43-8 problem?


Why must it be one or the other? Sure, Clady gets paid to protect Mannings blindside, just as he has for all but one Denver QB—but he's every bit as good a run blocker; he manages to grade roads just as effectively as Franklin but without the heavy feet that makes Franklin such a liability at T. Sure, Vasquez pass blocks better than he run blocks—but he's not a BAD run blocker, just an elite pass blocker. I love Orange Julius' potency in the passing game, but if he's just a fast, soft-handed 250 lb. WR, let's overrule his college coach and MAKE him one instead of trying to make him a TE.

I do agree with this much: We can't schizophrenically sell out on pass blocking at the expense of run blocking yet try to force quality run blocking on that. If we want smashmouth guards who shove back DTs and pull to block in the open field, we'll have to pursue them as aggressively as we pursued Vasquez for his pass blocking: Converting a DT and failed RT to Gs won't cut it, and, while Ramirez has been a pretty good C (with the notable exception of the SBs first play) he was such an AWFUL G we stuck Kuper back out there in the playoffs even after the piece of metal attaching his foot to his leg tore loose.

We tried the "screw the run, just throw it" game in the SB and got blown out by 5 TDs. No first downs till the SECOND quarter; no points till the LAST play of the THIRD. Two Ints (including a pick-six) and a strip-sack. Seattle was basically built to beat teams like ours, and the League lets them get away with an incredible amount of PEDs and dirty hits that would get anyone else banned for life, but regardless of all that we must still keep defenses honest so the defensive lines can't pin their ears back and charge Manning while their LBs and DBs play 2-on-1 vs. our receivers.

All the other reasons to run—and there are PLENTY, especially with a second half lead when we need to kill the clock, sideline gunslingers attempting comebacks, avoid turnovers, and tire opposing defenses while resting ours so our pass rushers can keep sprinting toward the QB while everyone else sprints downfield to knock down Hail Mary after Hail Mary—ALL that stuff takes a backseat to not doing the defenses job FOR them by telling them the play BEFORE WE EVEN RUN IT. Seattle's not the only ones who've watched film and practiced our bubble screens and "rub" (i.e. pick) plays.

The reality is that if our elite offense truly is an elite OFFENSE rather than just elite PASSING, we can run effectively. If not, we should get used to seeing opponents march over us en route to championships we're not good enough to win. Elway and Marino were elite first ballot HoF QBs, too: How many SBs did they win without a running game to relieve some pressure? I count 0-4 before the ZBS.

At what point does this become spam?

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 12:48 AM
As to the article.

He's right. Denver needs to win games, not try to not lose. Pass the ball. It's what this team is good at.

artie_dale
09-29-2014, 12:48 AM
What? Did Klis read my post?

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 12:54 AM
Do you know what Seattle did when it needed to win the game?

9 passes, 3 runs.

Joel
09-29-2014, 04:27 AM
At what point does this become spam?
At what point does THIS become stalking?

silkamilkamonico
09-29-2014, 01:52 PM
Ever stop and think that's the REAL problem? A 43-8 problem?


I mentioned that in my Run Game thread. They probably head to the LOS with a pass play in mind, when Manning audibles to a run play the oline has to change their mindset from passive to aggressive and that isn't easy to do.

We're not a smashmouth oline. Pass the f'n ball.

Joel
09-29-2014, 02:25 PM
I mentioned that in my Run Game thread. They probably head to the LOS with a pass play in mind, when Manning audibles to a run play the oline has to change their mindset from passive to aggressive and that isn't easy to do.

We're not a smashmouth oline. Pass the f'n ball.
When Manning comes to the line and sees everyone backed off in coverage or an overload blitz he does what VERY NFL QB does in that situation, and it's nothing new or unusual for starting NFL linemen; they practice it all the time, and have for years. If ours can't handle it, the problem's not the audible, it's them, and they'd probably be the first to say so.

Our line's not smashmouth, just pass blockers? Franklin's practically the opposite of that, Clark's pretty close and Clady's elite run AND pass blocking; those guys have great power, and what got Manning killed in the SB (apart from the defenses luxury of ignoring our anemic irrelevant run game to sell out on the pass) was all the pass rushers whipping around and past Clark and Franklin like they weren't even there. If they can't push defenders back for line surge EITHER, what CAN they do? If the interior linemen can't/won't do their jobs, the solution's not adding a TE, but finding interior linemen.

Note: Converting a DT and failed RT to G, then drafting an OUTSIDE lineman in the third round doesn't count as "finding interior linemen." We need more than just Vasquez and Clady; 2 All Pros can't play 5 positions at once, and can only do so much to help Franklin and Clark impersonate adequacy.

silkamilkamonico
09-29-2014, 02:32 PM
When Manning comes to the line and sees everyone backed off in coverage or an overload blitz he does what VERY NFL QB does in that situation, and it's nothing new or unusual for starting NFL linemen; they practice it all the time, and have for years. If ours can't handle it, the problem's not the audible, it's them, and they'd probably be the first to say so.


I don't believe for one second that every team in the NFL comes to the LOS with the intention of passing.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 02:42 PM
When Manning comes to the line and sees everyone backed off in coverage or an overload blitz he does what VERY NFL QB does in that situation, and it's nothing new or unusual for starting NFL linemen; they practice it all the time, and have for years. If ours can't handle it, the problem's not the audible, it's them, and they'd probably be the first to say so.

Our line's not smashmouth, just pass blockers? Franklin's practically the opposite of that, Clark's pretty close and Clady's elite run AND pass blocking; those guys have great power, and what got Manning killed in the SB (apart from the defenses luxury of ignoring our anemic irrelevant run game to sell out on the pass) was all the pass rushers whipping around and past Clark and Franklin like they weren't even there. If they can't push defenders back for line surge EITHER, what CAN they do? If the interior linemen can't/won't do their jobs, the solution's not adding a TE, but finding interior linemen.

Note: Converting a DT and failed RT to G, then drafting an OUTSIDE lineman in the third round doesn't count as "finding interior linemen." We need more than just Vasquez and Clady; 2 All Pros can't play 5 positions at once, and can only do so much to help Franklin and Clark impersonate adequacy.

Franklin and Clark aren't nearly as bad as you want them to be. In terms of drafting, Denver was drafting at the bottom of the first round where there was only one real interior line possibility available in Xavier Su'a-Filo, and right now you'd be bitching about him because he wouldn't be starting over Vasquez, Ramires or Franklin.

slim
09-29-2014, 02:49 PM
Franklin and Clark aren't nearly as bad as you want them to be. In terms of drafting, Denver was drafting at the bottom of the first round where there was only one real interior line possibility available in Xavier Su'a-Filo, and right now you'd be bitching about him because he wouldn't be starting over Vasquez, Ramires or Franklin.

Clark has been pretty average this year. If not below average.

tripp
09-29-2014, 02:54 PM
Clark has been pretty average this year. If not below average.

He's killed us on a few drives where we've started 1st and 10 and a few holding penalties crippled the drive.

Joel
09-29-2014, 03:01 PM
I don't believe for one second that every team in the NFL comes to the LOS with the intention of passing.

I mentioned that in my Run Game thread. They probably head to the LOS with a pass play in mind, when Manning audibles to a run play the oline has to change their mindset from passive to aggressive and that isn't easy to do.
So not EVERY NFL team: Just OURS. If there's anything more passive than basically saying, "we can't run on them, so we won't even try," I can't think of it. Sad thing is, right now it's pretty much true. :(


Franklin and Clark aren't nearly as bad as you want them to be. In terms of drafting, Denver was drafting at the bottom of the first round where there was only one real interior line possibility available in Xavier Su'a-Filo, and right now you'd be bitching about him because he wouldn't be starting over Vasquez, Ramires or Franklin.
Just because Su'a-Filo's not good enough to win a starting job on the very good ZBS line Kubes and Dennison built in Houston doesn't mean he's not good enough to win it over a failed RT who hasn't played G since college. We didn't move Franklin inside just because he was a great run blocker at a pass blocking spot: He was a turnstile against any DE with quickness and dexterity, and that was against LEFT DEs who typically sacrifice some speed for greater strength to shed TEs and play the strongside run.

Clark was a lot like Franklin on the other side; he's strong enough he did well against bull rushers (he stonewalled Ware so completely @Dallas last year that the All Pro switched sides to go at Franklin in the second half, with the same result for the same reason,) but against smaller faster rushers like Mathis: Three strip-sacks in as many games. I had high hopes for him at RT, since Manning can see it when he lets a guy through to the QB, but his strength should be as valuable as Franklins against those bigger slower LDEs—so far it hasn't happened though.

So far, the only time I recall Clarks name mentioned much was when he had (IIRC) three penalties vs. KC. Just 'cause Fox says he's the NFLs best BACKUP OT doesn't make him anything more than that.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 03:45 PM
Clark has been pretty average this year. If not below average.

I don't think he's been terrible, so we'll agree to disagree. Denver has given up all of three sacks thus far, second best in the league.

I didn't like the move. Despite what Joel thinks, Franklin was just fine at RT all season last year and I didn't like the move. The one move I really disagreed with in offseason (outside of not signing Moreno, though at least I understand why that move was made).

There still wasn't anyone to fix that hole in the draft. We were stuck with three tackles and one guard.

Joel
09-29-2014, 04:10 PM
I don't think he's been terrible, so we'll agree to disagree. Denver has given up all of three sacks thus far, second best in the league.

I didn't like the move. Despite what Joel thinks, Franklin was just fine at RT all season last year and I didn't like the move. The one move I really disagreed with in offseason (outside of not signing Moreno, though at least I understand why that move was made).

There still wasn't anyone to fix that hole in the draft. We were stuck with three tackles and one guard.
I'd rather have Su'a-Filo than Schofield, even if it meant losing Lattimer; neither of them have played any more (or even as much?) as Su'a-Filo this year. We could've had Asamoah in FA; IIRC he's making ~$2 million/year with his new team. We could have had Geoff Schwartz even cheaper, and he's started at OT and G both, though obviously I don't want him now that's he's out for the year.

We had those CHEAP yet GOOD options at G even just looking a the draft and a single division rival, so let's not pretend we simply had no alternative but moving Franklin inside hoping Manning can at least see Clark doing his turnstile impression now that it's on the other side. I keep forgetting we added Montgomery, too, but forgetting guys who don't play is understandable: He won't win us a championship from bench. I may feel differently if we lose Franklin to FA next year, but I'd still rather have Su'a-Filo than Schofield, if only because we DO have more OTs than Gs.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 04:33 PM
Well, I think it's no surprise that I disagree with you. Rather have the Top 10 corner than the mid-2nd round talent guard. And it's not whether or not you like Lattimer or Su'a-Filo. It's whether you'd rather have Roby or Su'a-Filo.

Joel
09-29-2014, 08:20 PM
Well, I think it's no surprise that I disagree with you. Rather have the Top 10 corner than the mid-2nd round talent guard. And it's not whether or not you like Lattimer or Su'a-Filo. It's whether you'd rather have Roby or Su'a-Filo.
It may be early to call Roby a top 10 CB, unless you mean in the draft, where the difference between "top 10 CB" and "mid-2nd round" is negligible. Rick Dennison clearly thought Su'a-Filo better than mid-2nd since Houston spent the FIRST 2nd round pick on him. It's a fair point that Su'a-Filo went just two picks after Roby though; that IS a much harder choice than Su'a-Filo vs. Lattimer. Yet we're not naked at CB, with Talib, Harris and Webster, who looked good last year and Brandon Spanos folks claim is better now. With those kind of quality numbers at G, we'd rush for more and I'd worry less.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 08:36 PM
Top 10 talent in the draft.

Joel
09-29-2014, 10:24 PM
Top 10 talent in the draft.
Ah, in that case we'll see; it's hard to believe a dozen teams who picked ahead of us were so desperate to fill one spot they passed on one of the drafts top ten players.

MOtorboat
09-29-2014, 10:26 PM
I'll take him over the back up guard.

elsid13
09-30-2014, 04:45 AM
It may be early to call Roby a top 10 CB, unless you mean in the draft, where the difference between "top 10 CB" and "mid-2nd round" is negligible. Rick Dennison clearly thought Su'a-Filo better than mid-2nd since Houston spent the FIRST 2nd round pick on him. It's a fair point that Su'a-Filo went just two picks after Roby though; that IS a much harder choice than Su'a-Filo vs. Lattimer. Yet we're not naked at CB, with Talib, Harris and Webster, who looked good last year and Brandon Spanos folks claim is better now. With those kind of quality numbers at G, we'd rush for more and I'd worry less.

Dennison is in Baltimore coaching the QBs and didn't draft Su'a-Filo.

Joel
09-30-2014, 05:59 AM
Dennison is in Baltimore coaching the QBs and didn't draft Su'a-Filo.
Ah; I didn't realize Schaub cost Dennison is job along with Kubiaks; nice trifecta. Weird to think of them coaching the nee-Browns; seems deeply wrong.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 08:51 AM
Running game and D still wins championships. That is all.

No, it doesn't. Look at trends of recent super bowl winners. Teams tend to rank higher offensively than defensively, and they tend to rank higher in passing than rushing.

Buff
09-30-2014, 09:01 AM
I don't think he's been terrible, so we'll agree to disagree. Denver has given up all of three sacks thus far, second best in the league.

I didn't like the move. Despite what Joel thinks, Franklin was just fine at RT all season last year and I didn't like the move. The one move I really disagreed with in offseason (outside of not signing Moreno, though at least I understand why that move was made).

There still wasn't anyone to fix that hole in the draft. We were stuck with three tackles and one guard.

He wasn't fine. He got bull rushed into Manning on the regular and embarrassed in the Super Bowl. Not only that, but Clark played well enough filling in for Clady last year that he earned the right to get on the field. Franklin is plenty qualified to be a NFL guard, perhaps moreso than he is to be a tackle.

For the same reason, I disagree with Klis. This team needs to try and find a way to be more balanced and if that means trying to force the run during the first part of the season, then so be it. We simply have to run more effectively if we are going to make a deep run.

People act like "oh, the Super Bowl was just one game" - yeah, it was the only game that mattered and we weren't even close. We need to reshape our identity accordingly.

Joel
09-30-2014, 09:38 AM
No, it doesn't. Look at trends of recent super bowl winners. Teams tend to rank higher offensively than defensively, and they tend to rank higher in passing than rushing.
Right, because when we think of elite passers, the first names that come to mind are Wilson, Flacco and ELI Manning. I personally think Eli underrated, but still don't think he's a top passer, and he's never had great WRs: His D got him to his first SB and great RB committee won his second. The most RECENT great passing team to win a championship was GB, and that was FOUR YEARS AGO. Last year it was Seattle D and Lynch so Wilson's key role was not screwing up; before that it was great D and running vs. great D and running, with Baltimore coming out on top, then Eli beat Brady—AGAIN.

Passing sells tickets and gets ratings by giving teams hope when down multiple scores late with no time left to run their way back in it. Yet it's the reliably boring run and D that puts them down late, frequently because a teams inability to run OR play D forces it to "take its shots" right into its own foot. Our -1 TO ratio against Seattle was a lot more fun than our -5 ratio.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 09:44 AM
Go look at the numbers Joel. The trends don't lie. You can bring up guys like Eli and flacco, but I can bring up Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. Having a great passing game is a better predictor of success than a great running game. That doesn't mean you don't see exceptions, but the facts are the facts.

If a running game is the most vital cog to winning, why have the Vikings been horrible for most of AP's career?

MOtorboat
09-30-2014, 10:01 AM
Go look at the numbers Joel. The trends don't lie. You can bring up guys like Eli and flacco, but I can bring up Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. Having a great passing game is a better predictor of success than a great running game. That doesn't mean you don't see exceptions, but the facts are the facts.

If a running game is the most vital cog to winning, why have the Vikings been horrible for most of AP's career?

Better yet, look at Manning and Flacco's performances in the games that mattered. Those teams passed to win in the playoffs.

Buff
09-30-2014, 10:03 AM
Go look at the numbers Joel. The trends don't lie. You can bring up guys like Eli and flacco, but I can bring up Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. Having a great passing game is a better predictor of success than a great running game. That doesn't mean you don't see exceptions, but the facts are the facts.

If a running game is the most vital cog to winning, why have the Vikings been horrible for most of AP's career?

It's not that running = success. It's that balance = success. One dimensional teams don't make it in the playoffs generally speaking.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 10:07 AM
Go look at the numbers Joel. The trends don't lie. You can bring up guys like Eli and flacco, but I can bring up Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. Having a great passing game is a better predictor of success than a great running game. That doesn't mean you don't see exceptions, but the facts are the facts.

If a running game is the most vital cog to winning, why have the Vikings been horrible for most of AP's career?

It's not that running = success. It's that balance = success. One dimensional teams don't make it in the playoffs generally speaking.

Fair enough, but it's not uncommon to see a team with a great qb and mediocre running game win a title. You almost never see it happen the other way around.

Joel
09-30-2014, 11:35 AM
It's not that running = success. It's that balance = success. One dimensional teams don't make it in the playoffs generally speaking.
Yup; just because the run's A vital or even THE MOST vital cog doesn't make it the ONLY one.


Fair enough, but it's not uncommon to see a team with a great qb and mediocre running game win a title. You almost never see it happen the other way around.
Except for the last SB. And BOTH teams in the last NFCCG. And the BOTH teams in the PREVIOUS SB. And 3/4 teams in that years Conference Championships; the odd man out was a guy named Brady, who's generally a considered a fair passer, but had a run game so awful he was handing off to TEs in the playoffs. The year before THAT got to the SB, but lost to a weaker passer with a FAR better run game and D, which had a lot to do with why NY only left NE about a minute to overcome the game-winning TD; that's enough time with an elite passing team, but not if an elite D does its Preventative job.

You brought up the RECENT trend, and the RECENT trend is running teams with great D beating passing teams with neither a run game nor D. Sure, PFM won a SB—in 2006; that's nearly a decade and many run-first champions ago; his brothers run-first team alone has won twice as many since. Rodgers is the most recent, but even that was four years ago, and Brees vs. Manning in '09 is pretty much the ONLY time in the last DECADE running didn't beat passing in the SB.

Bettis and Parker over Hasselbeck
Manning over Chicagos offense-optional elite D
The OTHER Mannings D over Brady
Pitts D over Warner
Brees over Manning
Rodgers over Mendenhall and Roethlisberger
The OTHER Mannings RBs over Brady
Rice and his D over Gore and his (Flacco and Kaepernick can be called many things, but "great passers" is not among them; the great passsers were Manning, Brady and Rodgers: Where were they...?)
Wilson and his D over Manning.

Three passing championships in the last nine SBs, the most "recent" four years ago, and two years later NONE of the great passing teams even GOT to the SB, much less won. If passing were the sum total of championships, Eli wouldn't be undefeated in SBs while his brother and Brady are a COMBINED .500. All depends on whether the goal's to hang 40 pts on a bunch of average defenses and reach the playoffs but lose taking too many risks vs. great D, or take no unnecessary risks and keep winning by narrow margins all the way to a championship.

We almost never see mediocre QBs with great running games win championships? Roethlisberger and Eli Manning have made CAREERS out of it, winning 4 SB along the way against HoF passing.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 12:02 PM
Big Ben was not mediocre in his prime. That is comical.

Joel
09-30-2014, 12:21 PM
Big Ben was not mediocre in his prime. That is comical.
He never impressed me, even in his prime (and if he's already past it in his 10th season, that says a lot, too.) Pitt has a maddeningly good front office that's surrounded him with a lot of talent, especially on D and in ground support, but he still looks like a FB with a strong scattershot arm to me. Last I checked, those weren't considered legit NFL passers, let alone elite ones.

Northman
09-30-2014, 12:28 PM
Big Ben is the real deal, just see the SB vs the Cardinals of proof of that.

And i said it before, take a great QB and surround him with exceptional talent and they will always look like world beaters. Tom Brady is a great QB, take away other talented players and you see exactly what we have seen this year.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 12:29 PM
Joel, I will post the stats when I get home and am in front of a computer, but it's absolutely a fact that over the past 10-15 years that on average, Super Bowl winners are ranked higher in passing than in rushing, and are ranked higher on offense than on defense. I'm not making that up. I've researched this somewhat extensively.

Joel
09-30-2014, 12:51 PM
Joel, I will post the stats when I get home and am in front of a computer, but it's absolutely a fact that over the past 10-15 years that on average, Super Bowl winners are ranked higher in passing than in rushing, and are ranked higher on offense than on defense. I'm not making that up. I've researched this somewhat extensively.
Fair enough, though I'll likely be in bed by then, so a response will have to wait the morrow. If you've got stats showing Seattles #1 ranked 2013 D was ranked higher than its offense (even though OUR offense was ranked #1) or that Baltimores 2012 offense was ranked higher than its D, I'm happy to look at it. Likewise any stats showing they passed for more than they got on the ground.

Seattle did have the NFLs highest passing yds/att in 2013, because their rare passes tend to be fairly long, but I'm pretty sure their rushing totals and attempts far exceeded those by air. We are talking about RANKINGS, right, not TOTALS? Because pretty much everyone has more total yards by air than on the ground, since passes average ~50% more, but that rising tide lifts all ships, so may not translate to being ranked above all the teams also gaining far more through the air than on the ground.

Traveler
09-30-2014, 12:53 PM
Big Ben is the real deal, just see the SB vs the Cardinals of proof of that.

And i said it before, take a great QB and surround him with exceptional talent and they will always look like world beaters. Tom Brady is a great QB, take away other talented players and you see exactly what we have seen this year.

Hell, you don't even have to look at the SB. Look what he did to DEN in the AFC Championship game in 2005. Don't sleep on Big Ben!

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 01:04 PM
Joel, your problem is that you are cherry-picking individual cases instead of looking at overall trends. Also go back and look at flaccos stats in the 2012 playoffs and tell me he wasn't absolutely lethal. Say what you will about how good he was before or after, but during those playoffs, he was elite.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 03:41 PM
Ok Joel, I went back and looked at those stats. I will admit that it was much closer than I remember (thanks a lot in part to Seattle skewing the data a bit) but over the last 10 seasons, super bowl champs have averaged this:

13th in passing YPG, 13.4th in rushing YPG

11.4th in total offense, 13th in total defense

So while it's pretty close, the trends do slightly favor passing over rushing and offense over defense.

Now, to pick into a few of the examples you gave.

You tout the 2011 Giants team as one that won with rushing and defense. Not the case at all if you look at their numbers. They ranked 5th in the NFL in passing that year and 32nd, dead last, in rushing. They were 8th in the league in total offense and 27th in total defense. So that example totally supports my theory.

Now let's look at the 2012 Ravens. They were ranked 16th in offense and 17th in defense. So they were slightly better offensively. And here were Flacco's playoff stats that year:
73/126 for 1140 yards, 11 TD, 0 INT. He passed them to the SB that year, no doubt about it.

One more example you liked to use: the 2008 Steelers. They were ranked 17th in passing and 23rd and rushing that year. Another year that went against how you claimed.

So in summary, I will admit it was a bit closer than I thought, but the trends in recent years do still favor passing over rushing and offense over defense.

Another thing to consider. Why do you think QBs and LTs get picked in the top 5 but RBs, Cs, and Gs don't? It's because teams value the passing game over the running game because that's what wins in this league. Same reasons you see so many pass rushers get picked highly. Because teams know you have to stop the pass to have a chance.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 03:47 PM
It's not that running = success. It's that balance = success. One dimensional teams don't make it in the playoffs generally speaking.

Buffalo, my stats pretty strongly disprove this. Of the last 10 super bowl champs, 6 of them ranked 21st or lower in either passing offense or rushing offense. There have been quite a few one dimensional teams win titles in that span. This year's Seattle team was 4th in rushing and 26th in passing. The 2011 Giants were 5th in passing and last in rushing. The 2010 Packers were 5th in passing and 24th in rushing. The 2007 Giants were 4th in rushing and 21st in passing. The 05 Steelers were 5th in passing and 24th in rushing.

So you absolutely can be one dimensional and still win a title.

Buff
09-30-2014, 03:59 PM
Buffalo, my stats pretty strongly disprove this. Of the last 10 super bowl champs, 6 of them ranked 21st or lower in either passing offense or rushing offense. There have been quite a few one dimensional teams win titles in that span. This year's Seattle team was 4th in rushing and 26th in passing. The 2011 Giants were 5th in passing and last in rushing. The 2010 Packers were 5th in passing and 24th in rushing. The 2007 Giants were 4th in rushing and 21st in passing. The 05 Steelers were 5th in passing and 24th in rushing.

So you absolutely can be one dimensional and still win a title.

I question the validity of using regular season statistics in aggregate to quantify the ability of a playoff team to play balanced football.

I think common sense tells us that teams can't be completely deficient in any one area or they won't make it through the playoffs. The Colts had a historically bad run defense when they won, as I recall... But they also lucked into playing Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl. So I think there are always exceptions to the rule, but I stand by my belief that defense and running game is crucial to any championship run.

BroncoWave
09-30-2014, 04:01 PM
I question the validity of using regular season statistics in aggregate to quantify the ability of a playoff team to play balanced football.

I think common sense tells us that teams can't be completely deficient in any one area or they won't make it through the playoffs. The Colts had a historically bad run defense when they won, as I recall... But they also lucked into playing Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl. So I think there are always exceptions to the rule, but I stand by my belief that defense and running game is crucial to any championship run.

I'm not saying those things are unimportant, but if I had a gun to my head and was forced to pick one or the other, I'd take a great passing game over a great running game and a great offense over a great defense.

Buff
09-30-2014, 04:10 PM
I'm not saying those things are unimportant, but if I had a gun to my head and was forced to pick one or the other, I'd take a great passing game over a great running game and a great offense over a great defense.

Yes, it's a passing league. So you're dead in the water if you don't have an effective passing game.

But it's almost like that goes without saying, and then the old truism remains true about running and defending.

Joel
10-01-2014, 11:59 AM
Ok Joel, I went back and looked at those stats. I will admit that it was much closer than I remember (thanks a lot in part to Seattle skewing the data a bit) but over the last 10 seasons, super bowl champs have averaged this:

13th in passing YPG, 13.4th in rushing YPG

11.4th in total offense, 13th in total defense

So while it's pretty close, the trends do slightly favor passing over rushing and offense over defense.
Rankings normalize stats to remove anomalies; averaging rankings just reinserts those anomalies. Seattles 17th ranked 2013 offensive is far from the mean (12) but close to the mean (16) so doesn't skew the average ranking much—but Brees' #1 2009 yardage and Mannings #3 2006 yardage skews it a lot. Only 2 others even rank in the top ten, and barely that (GBs 9th ranked 2010 Champs and, surprisingly, the 8th ranked 2011 Giants.) As many others were literally average: a 15th, pair of 16th and a 17th ranked offense; the team lowering the average is the 22nd ranked '08 Steelers offense.

In terms of PASSING yardage, it's even worse: As Buff notes, 5 of the last 9 SB Champs ranked worse than 20th in passing yards, and two more were strictly average (Flacco was so elite for the 2012 Ravens they ranked 15th in passing yards, and Roethlisberger so elite for the the '08 Steelers they ranked 17th.)

If we want to see truly impressive passing, try the ones those SB champs BEAT: The '07 Pats had the most passing yards of ANY season—until the '13 Broncos "passed" them last season; how'd that work out in their SBs? On top of that, 3 more of the last 9 SB losers ranked #2 in passing yards: That's OVER HALF THE LAST DECADES SB LOSERS RANKED 1ST OR 2ND IN PASSING! High passing ranks correlate more strongly with LOSING championships than WINNING them; even when Brees' championship team ranked 4th in passing, they beat a Colts team ranked 2nd.

How are even debating this? THE TEAMS WITH THE BEST AND SECOND BEST SEASON PASSING TOTAL EVER BOTH LOST THOSE SBS WITHIN JUST THE LAST 6 YEARS! To the seasons 21st and 26th ranked passing team, and three other times the seasons #2 passing team lost to the #4, #5 or even #17 passing team. That's a recent trend, alright. ;)


Now, to pick into a few of the examples you gave.

You tout the 2011 Giants team as one that won with rushing and defense. Not the case at all if you look at their numbers. They ranked 5th in the NFL in passing that year and 32nd, dead last, in rushing. They were 8th in the league in total offense and 27th in total defense. So that example totally supports my theory.
Except the OTHER team ranked higher in passing (2nd,) 20th in rushing and lower in total D (next to last, actually.) Eli had a better season than I thought, but the real question isn't how a NE lost the SB with slightly better passing but far worse D, but how EITHER team GOT there in the first place. The #1 passing offense (NO) didn't even come close: They were one-and-done 17 pt losers vs. Detroit.

SB XLVI wasn't a triumph of great passing over great running and D though, it was a triumph of great passing and average D over EVEN GREATER passing and awful D. The better D beat the better passers, and however they compared to the other 30 teams in the regular season, NY outrushed NE nearly 2:1 and averaged just over 4 yds/att.


Now let's look at the 2012 Ravens. They were ranked 16th in offense and 17th in defense. So they were slightly better offensively. And here were Flacco's playoff stats that year:
73/126 for 1140 yards, 11 TD, 0 INT. He passed them to the SB that year, no doubt about it.
Right, that's back to what Buff said about not being one-dimensional: Baltimores passing ranked a very average 15th, but their running game 11th, just missing the top ten, so teams sold out on their run and dared Flacco to beat them with his arm, which he was good enough to do. It's how we played them, and it would've worked if he hadn't ended BOTH halves with a Hail Mary TD; it nearly worked anyway. The team they beat in the SB ranked 23rd in passing though: By your argument, 23rd and 15th ranked passing teams shouldn't even be IN the SB, let alone playing EACH OTHER.


One more example you liked to use: the 2008 Steelers. They were ranked 17th in passing and 23rd and rushing that year. Another year that went against how you claimed.
Right again; that one was SOLELY about Pitts D, which ranked #1 overall, #1 vs. the pass and #2 vs. the run. I'll pause to note "in passing" that if Roethlisberger were truly "the real deal" even "in his prime" one would expect his championship teams to rank higher than 24th and 17th in passing. Still and so, the SB team Pitt beat with that 17th ranked passing? Ranked #2 in passing (and dead last in rushing) thanks to Warner, a HoF QB better at his worst than Roethlisberger at his best—too bad for the Cards there are 42 other guys on the field.


So in summary, I will admit it was a bit closer than I thought, but the trends in recent years do still favor passing over rushing and offense over defense.

Another thing to consider. Why do you think QBs and LTs get picked in the top 5 but RBs, Cs, and Gs don't? It's because teams value the passing game over the running game because that's what wins in this league. Same reasons you see so many pass rushers get picked highly. Because teams know you have to stop the pass to have a chance.
It's because the '71 Cowboys were the last good "QB-by-committee" team, and it ended badly for them. The QB's the SINGLE most important guy on the team because QBs don't get hit often enough to justify keeping 2 or 3 good ones around to take their place; these days, even the second stringer on most teams is a mere placeholder: If he has to start more than one or two games, his teams season is probably done. Starting QBs get the kind of money that goes with being the ONLY guy on the roster who can do their job well; Jamaal Charles can't demand that with Knile Davis lurking in the background.

Left tackles get top dollar precisely because the teams season is probably over if the passer DOES get hit as much as RBs, and most are righties, so the LT guards their blindside. Same deal for both: If we put all our eggs in one basket, we better invest in a pretty darned good basket; with multiple contingencies, we can (and should) spread our money more evenly over all or most of them; we can't afford to send in the waterboy if the starting RB goes out, because it's probably gonna happen several times before January.

On top of all that, teams don't need a top passer to have a chance (no matter how many people try to retroactively declare Flacco and Roethlisberger HoFers to salvage that claim; should we throw in Dilfer and Doug Williams while we're at it?) But teams DO need a top passer to "avoid losing" when they trail late and don't have time to spend half a quarter to get a tying score knowing their opponents will just milk the clock the moment they get possession again.

The more we closer we legislate toward "last team with the ball wins" the more we focus on passing, but there's a paradox in that: When everyone can consistently score as long as there's ANY time left, and no period can end on a defensive penalty, walk-off scores become more important than ever, and the best route to a walk-off is a game-winning drive that eats half a quarter, not a 3 play 1:00 drive that leaves the opponents time for 2 or 3 drives to regain the lead. And it sure ain't throwing incompletes or Ints.

Joel
10-01-2014, 12:06 PM
Hell, you don't even have to look at the SB. Look what he did to DEN in the AFC Championship game in 2005. Don't sleep on Big Ben!
Roethlisberger caused Plummers 2 fumbles and 2 Ints? Wow, he IS better than I thought—just not on offense! ;)

Bronco9798
10-01-2014, 12:07 PM
I couldn't read it. I got dizzy looking at all that white on blue.