Comparing the Broncos Defense To The 2000 Ravens!

[Cugel]

Well, it's been six games now, and the Broncos defense is still #1 in the NFL.

As of right now they are on target to be one of the top defenses of the last 25 years. Of course, it's early season yet and anything can happen. They have 10 games against some pretty good offensive teams, and they could start to taper off and give up some big scoring games.

But, just for now, here's how the Broncos are faring compared with the best Defense of modern times:

2000 Ravens gave up just 166 points, or 10.4 points a game. That's the modern NFL Record and the best scoring defense since the '86 Bears.

To put this in perspective have a look at the top scoring defenses of the past 25 years:

1985 Bears -- 198 points -- Crushed the Patriots 44-10 in SB.
1986 Bears -- 187 points -- Lost to eventual SB Champ Giants in "Fog Bowl"
1988 Bears -- 215 points -- lost to 49ers
1989 Broncos -- 215 points -- Best Broncos scoring defense since the '77 Broncos who only gave up 148 points! *fn
1990 Giants 211 -- SB Champions over the Bills
1991 Saints 211 -- lost division playoffs to eventual SB Champ Redskins
1994 Browns -- 204 lost division playoff
1996 Packers -- 210 (only 210 points + Brett Favre = SB win)

Oh, and the Broncos SB Champions? Not so great defense, but Elway + T.D.

1997 Broncos gave up 287 points
1998 Broncos gave up 309 points -- But who cares? They scored 501.
2000 Ravens -- 166 points Best modern mark since the 16 game season.
2000 Titans -- only gave up 191 points, second best since the '86 Bears, but had the bad luck to run into the 2000 Ravens
2001 Steelers 212 points -- lost to Pats
2002 Bucs 196 points -- SB Champs over Raiders
2005 Bears 202 points -- lost SB to Pats.
2006 Ravens 201 points -- lost to eventual SB Champ Colts
2008 Steelers for comparison -- 223 points. That was best in the NFL last season.

Can the Broncos continue at this level? They are on pace to give up only 176 points which would be the 2nd best record of the modern 16 game era.

They probably can't sustain that level since they play a LOT of good offensive teams including the Ravens, Colts, Giants and Eagles as well as the Chargers once again. But, if they COULD do it, they COULD win a SB.

Not just win a playoff game, but go to a SB. Of course, the stories of

fn*BTW: In addition to the 14 game season, the 70's and early 80's was a VASTLY Different era since the DBs were allowed to block WRs more than 5 yards downfield. Teams won by running, not passing and games were much lower scoring. For instance that '77 "Orange Crush" defense was not even the best defense of that year! The L.A. Rams gave up 146 points in '77 and the Atlanta Falcons gave up only 129. That Falcons team? They only won 7 games and didn't even make the playoffs! That was a 14 game season of course, but still, that Falcons team gave up only 9.2 points a game. Extended over a 16 game season that would only be 147 points, or 19 points fewer than the 2000 Ravens!

Got them nowhere. :coffee:

[CrazyHorse]

I remember we started out really well in 2006 - even better than this year. Then we had a meltdown and Coyer was fired. Hopefully we can keep the streak alive this time.

[Ziggy]

I remember we started out really well in 2006 - even better than this year. Then we had a meltdown and Coyer was fired. Hopefully we can keep the streak alive this time.


That was a team with different players and different coaches. No adjustments were made during the game for that defense. Once the rest of the NFL figured them out, they never adjusted and were exposed as the frauds that they were. This year's version is for real, and are making adjustments on the fly. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

[Lonestar]

I wonder if we would get the same BE* about Orton just being a game manager like dilfer was that year?..
















*bovine excrement

[Shazam!]

I'll take 6-0, regardless of the QB.

Go KO.

[Cugel]

That was a team with different players and different coaches. No adjustments were made during the game for that defense. Once the rest of the NFL figured them out, they never adjusted and were exposed as the frauds that they were. This year's version is for real, and are making adjustments on the fly. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

This team doesn't have to blitz on every single down to have success. That year the Broncos had NO pass-rush with just 4 defenders, and had to blitz to have success. Teams adjusted to that and started to score more points against them. Plus, their secondary was much weaker. Especially there was little safety help over the top. Renaldo Hill is MUCH better in coverage than say Nick Ferguson. Brian Dawkins does not appear to be as much of a liability in coverage as John Lynch was, although he's older.

I would be very surprised if this team fell apart and started giving up big scores like that team did the last 6 weeks of the season:

2006 Broncos:

Week 1 - Rams 18 points
Week 2 - Chiefs 9 points
Week 3 - Patriots 7 points
Week 5 - Ravens 3 points
Week 6 - Raiders 3 points
Week 7 - Browns 7 points
Total - 47 points


"The Broncos by this point had only allowed 1 touchdown in 52 opponent possessions. In this game they became the first team since the 1934 Detroit Lions to go five games while allowing only one touchdown to be scored against them."


By comparison in 2009 Denver has given up 66 points.

In 2006 it started to unravel against the Colts:

Week 8 - Colts 34 points
Week 9 - Steelers 20 points
Week 10 - Raiders 13 points

This was the high-point of the season. They were 7-3.

Week 11 - Chargers 35
Week 12 - Chiefs 19
Week 13 - Seahawks 23
Week 14 - Chargers 48
Week 15 - Cardinals 20
Week 16 - Bengals 23
Week 17 - 49ers 26

It's those three games against the Colts and Chargers that make most of the damage. This year they hopefully won't give up any 48 point games. That's just crushing.

Total: 305 points. That's not terrible: 9th in the league. But they missed the playoffs.

Same thing could happen to the Broncos. But, they have more good players on defense right now than that team did.

That just shows how hard it is to play like the 2000 Ravens for an entire season. You saw from my original post how few teams have given up fewer than 200 points in modern NFL history.

I never said this team will do that. But, they COULD. They are undefeated after all and getting good defensive pressure. Just because the 2006 team defense collapsed, doesn't mean it WILL happen again.

[Cugel]

It was that Atlanta Falcons 1977 team that really surprised me. Seeing that they only gave up 129 points and yet were 7-7.

Can you imagine a team nowadays giving up only 9 points a game? And NOT making the playoffs? :laugh:

[Overtime]

2005 Bears 202 points -- lost SB to Pats.
2006 Ravens 201 points -- lost to eventual SB Champ Colts
2008 Steelers for comparison -- 223 points. That was best in the NFL last season.


um the 2005 Bears didn't even play in the Super Bowl let alone lose it to the Patriots.

the '05 Steelers won the Super Bowl in Feb 06 against the Seahawks,
06 colts won in Feb 07 against the Bears
07 giants won in Feb 08 against the Pats.

[JDL]

That was a team with different players and different coaches. No adjustments were made during the game for that defense. Once the rest of the NFL figured them out, they never adjusted and were exposed as the frauds that they were. This year's version is for real, and are making adjustments on the fly. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Actually, that year's team had issues with Al Wilson's health. Yes, we got blown out by Indy, but Wilson started slowing down and then got badly injured in Seattle and was terribly effective after that. All the evidence that year you need to know is what happened in Seattle when he went down and consequently when he didn't play against SF.

Dawkins going down in the first half should be more than enough evidence that he is the one holding this D together and without the D is really not very impressive at all, we probably would have given up a good 35pts at least had things continued the way they were. The talent level is just not what it needs to be to really maintain this type of level of play, but it is nice to know that we have the ability, with the right personnel long-term to develop a D that will remind us all of the Orange Crush of yesteryear. But, this years D will only be as good as Dawkins health.

[Overtime]

Actually, that year's team had issues with Al Wilson's health. Yes, we got blown out by Indy, but Wilson started slowing down and then got badly injured in Seattle and was terribly effective after that. All the evidence that year you need to know is what happened in Seattle when he went down and consequently when he didn't play against SF.

Dawkins going down in the first half should be more than enough evidence that he is the one holding this D together and without the D is really not very impressive at all, we probably would have given up a good 35pts at least had things continued the way they were. The talent level is just not what it needs to be to really maintain this type of level of play, but it is nice to know that we have the ability, with the right personnel long-term to develop a D that will remind us all of the Orange Crush of yesteryear. But, this years D will only be as good as Dawkins health.

im not sure I agree with that evaluation. Denver held San Diego to 10 points (1 TD and a FG) without him, and our special teams gave up a TD. SD got a FG to start off with before he went out of the game with his hamstring injury.

Dawkins is a big part of the leadership, but I just don't believe 1 guy is the deciding factor in whether our defense will play good or poorly.

[Elevation inc]

This team doesn't have to blitz on every single down to have success. That year the Broncos had NO pass-rush with just 4 defenders, and had to blitz to have success. Teams adjusted to that and started to score more points against them. Plus, their secondary was much weaker. Especially there was little safety help over the top. Renaldo Hill is MUCH better in coverage than say Nick Ferguson. Brian Dawkins does not appear to be as much of a liability in coverage as John Lynch was, although he's older.

I would be very surprised if this team fell apart and started giving up big scores like that team did the last 6 weeks of the season:

2006 Broncos:

Week 1 - Rams 18 points
Week 2 - Chiefs 9 points
Week 3 - Patriots 7 points
Week 5 - Ravens 3 points
Week 6 - Raiders 3 points
Week 7 - Browns 7 points
Total - 47 points



By comparison in 2009 Denver has given up 66 points.

In 2006 it started to unravel against the Colts:

Week 8 - Colts 34 points
Week 9 - Steelers 20 points
Week 10 - Raiders 13 points

This was the high-point of the season. They were 7-3.

Week 11 - Chargers 35
Week 12 - Chiefs 19
Week 13 - Seahawks 23
Week 14 - Chargers 48
Week 15 - Cardinals 20
Week 16 - Bengals 23
Week 17 - 49ers 26

It's those three games against the Colts and Chargers that make most of the damage. This year they hopefully won't give up any 48 point games. That's just crushing.

Total: 305 points. That's not terrible: 9th in the league. But they missed the playoffs.

Same thing could happen to the Broncos. But, they have more good players on defense right now than that team did.

That just shows how hard it is to play like the 2000 Ravens for an entire season. You saw from my original post how few teams have given up fewer than 200 points in modern NFL history.

I never said this team will do that. But, they COULD. They are undefeated after all and getting good defensive pressure. Just because the 2006 team defense collapsed, doesn't mean it WILL happen again.

dont forget lynch was playing hurt after the browns game AL wilson was out for the rest of the year, i belive we also had injuries to sam brandon or curome cox. As well as half the browncos and if i remeber correctly are run game was faltering from injuries as well and plummer was struggling bad on offense

there was also severe discord in the locker room after jay was named the starter.

our chemistry from 2005 was never the same when jake was benched.....


this is a far different team than 2006......

[Dreadnought]

It was that Atlanta Falcons 1977 team that really surprised me. Seeing that they only gave up 129 points and yet were 7-7.

Can you imagine a team nowadays giving up only 9 points a game? And NOT making the playoffs? :laugh:

Scott Hunter. The starting QB for the team had two TD's that season. Count 'em ladies and gents, two. He hit 46% of his passes for under 6 YPC. He was replaced by rookie QB Steve Bartkowski who then racked up an impressive 9.6% interception rate while still hitting less than 50% of his passes. Oh, and they couldn't run either, averaging 3.2 YPC. Plus they only hit 43% of their FG's. Thats all together how you squander one of the great defensive performances of all time.

[Northman]

Dont know if they are up there with the Ravens D of 2000. But our offense is actually better than theirs were at the time. Either way, i dont care about stats. Just get me too the playoffs with a chance at the dance and ill be a happy camper.

[Nomad]

Dont know if they are up there with the Ravens D of 2000. But our offense is actually better than theirs were at the time. Either way, i dont care about stats. Just get me too the playoffs with a chance at the dance and ill be a happy camper.

QFT!!! What's the need to compare at this moment anyway, unless the BRONCOS win the superbowl this year like that Ravens team did then there is no comparison if they don't.

[Cugel]

dont forget lynch was playing hurt after the browns game AL wilson was out for the rest of the year, i belive we also had injuries to sam brandon or curome cox. As well as half the browncos and if i remeber correctly are run game was faltering from injuries as well and plummer was struggling bad on offense

there was also severe discord in the locker room after jay was named the starter.

our chemistry from 2005 was never the same when jake was benched.....

this is a far different team than 2006......

I would not argue that just because the 2006 team defense tanked, this one will.

That year it never seemed the defense would be able to play that well all season. They blitzed a LOT, which is fine against teams that don't handle it well. But, to be a good defense you have to be able to rush with your basic front 4 and then drop 7 in coverage and COVER people. They couldn't do that, largely because they didn't have very good cover safeties. Ferguson and Lynch were both more Strong Safeties and neither was very fast.

The word coming out of Philly was that Dawkins was a liability in coverage, and the expectation was he'd be rather like John Lynch -- a heavy hitter and team leader, but slow in coverage. Well, that's just not the case. He's showing surprising speed and coverage skills as well as team leadership.

This team probably WON'T give up 48 points to anybody. That would be my guess anyway.

[Cugel]

QFT!!! What's the need to compare at this moment anyway, unless the BRONCOS win the superbowl this year like that Ravens team did then there is no comparison if they don't.

It's merely INTERESTING to see, that's all. I said at the top of this thread that it is only 6 games in. The defense may NOT play like the Ravens for the entire year.

If you're not interested in stats don't post in this thread. :coffee:

But the defense has STARTED the season like the 2000 Ravens, or more likely, the 2003 Bucs which gave up fewer than 200 points. The Bucs might be a better comparison, because that defense was NOT as dominating as the Ravens, but it DID win the SB with Brad Johnson.

That might be the closest parallel with the 2009 Broncos. A defense that will probably NOT be as good as the 2000 Ravens (they have no young Ray Lewis on this team), but a somewhat better offense.

Orton is playing better than Dilfer did that season.

The 2000 Ravens scored 333 points, 20.8 per game and gave up 10.3. They won 12 games.

The 2003 Bucs scored 346 21.6/game, and gave up 196, 12.25 per game.

The 2009 Broncos have scored 133, 22.2/game and given up 66, 11/game.

That fits them squarely in between the Ravens and Bucs.

Can they keep that up? History says probably not. But, that doesn't mean they CAN'T do it, just that they probably won't.

But, if you don't START OFF great you're not going to have a great season defensively. So, it's a great start anyway.

And it would be nice to think of the Broncos being a dominating defensive team. I think most fans would be very happy with seeing Dumervil terrorize and sack the QB every week, instead of watching opposing teams march up and down the field and score 35 points every week like last year. :coffee: