PDA

View Full Version : Shoutout To Broncosforums or "Broncos' piping-hot 6-0 start readjusts expectations"



AgentOrange
10-26-2009, 09:45 AM
Tned's poll thread "After a 6-0 start, will 'only' winning the division be a dissapointment?" gets press at denverpost.com :salute:

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13641317

Krieger: Broncos' piping-hot 6-0 start readjusts expectations

Perhaps not since Charles Dickens' young Pip has anyone gone from no expectations to great expectations as fast as this year's Broncos.

As they return to work following their bye week, the NFL's most surprising undefeated team faces a challenging history. The Broncos started 6-0 four times in their previous 49 seasons. They went on to the Super Bowl every time.

Can this year's reconstituted team make it 5-for-5?

This speculative exercise is of much greater interest to fans and observers than to the team itself, which has gotten to 6-0 by looking at the little picture, not the big one. Still, I asked coach Josh McDaniels last week if being 6-0 puts more pressure on the team he has overhauled since taking charge in January.

"No," he said. "That's all we are, is 6-0. The only pressure that we have is the same pressure we've been playing with since the beginning of the preseason, which is to go out there and play our best football every week.

"That doesn't change. The opponents are going to change, but what we're doing and how we work and how we prepare each week is not going to change. Our record is not really going to affect whether we work harder. Hopefully we've been working as hard as we possibly can, and that's the attitude we're going to have going forward."

A once-daunting schedule now looks at least manageable, especially with games remaining against Washington (2-4), Oakland (2-5) and two against Kansas City (1-6).

"Football in Kansas City is just awful," Boomer Esiason said Sunday on CBS at halftime of San Diego's 37-7 beatdown of the Chiefs.

"And it used to be so good too," said James Brown, as if talking about the dead.

Win those four and split the rest and the Broncos would end up 13-3. Even allowing a traditional loss in Kansas City or a 2-4 record against the better opponents, the Broncos would still end up 12-4, with an excellent chance at a first-round bye in the playoffs.

So Broncos fans are recalibrating expectations on the fly. At broncosforums.com, a poll asks the question, "With 6-0 start, will winning the division but losing in the first round be disappointing?"

In early voting on the site, almost half the respondents replied "No, winning the division will have exceeded most expectations. That's all they need to do."

Nearly a third replied, "Yes, a 6-0 start and beating strong teams (Cincinnati, New England, Dallas, San Diego), we need to win one or more playoff games."

The remainder, a little less than a quarter, replied, "Yes, if this team doesn't make a serious run at the Super Bowl, it will be very disappointing."

At pro-football-reference.com, Jason Lisk did a statistical analysis of the Broncos' results so far, comparing them with every other NFL team since 1978 on the basis of wins, points, rushing yards, passing yards and the respective differentials with their opponents, on both sides of the ball. With a heavy weighting on wins, the 10 teams most similar to the 2009 Broncos all started either 6-0 or 5-1.

It might be slightly disconcerting that the team his study found most similar, the 1981 Philadelphia Eagles of Dick Vermeil, Ron Jaworski and Wilbert Montgomery, started 6-0 and went 4-6 the rest of the way, finishing 10-6 and losing a wild-card playoff game to the Giants.

On the other hand, the second-most similar team, the 1986 Giants, started 5-1 and went 9-1 the rest of the way, finishing 14-2 and beating the Broncos in the Super Bowl. (The Broncos also started 6-0 that year, going 5-5 the rest of the way.)

All 10 of the teams Lisk found most similar to this year's Broncos finished between 10-6 and 14-2. Their average final record was 12-4. They did slow down after their fast starts, going from a collective 56-4 over their first six games to 68-32 over their last 10.

More to the point, Lisk put the Broncos' chances of making the playoffs at 99 percent.

So a team from which little or nothing was expected at the beginning of the season is now in a position to accomplish a great deal. But there's still no consensus as to just how great the expectations ought to be.

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:49 AM
Hey, nice find. I like that '86 Giants comparison, so will hold on to the hope that is the kind of success we will have. :D

NightTrainLayne
10-26-2009, 09:50 AM
That's pretty cool. I :salute: you Tned.

As for the article, we are bound to stumble a little bit over the next 10 games. How this team reacts to a loss or two, and the resulting adversity will be a big indicator of what we can do in the Playoffs.

First step, is we need to worry about Baltimore. Winning there, on the road, after they've had a bye as well, will be a big challenge.

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:54 AM
Even though Baltimore has stumbled, losing three straight, winning in Baltimore is tough. I think it will be even tougher with them coming off the bye and simmering about three straight losses. A win for Baltimore means a LOT more to them than the Broncos right now.

NightTrainLayne
10-26-2009, 10:03 AM
Even though Baltimore has stubled, losing three straight, winning in Baltimore is tough. I think it will be even tougher with them coming off the bye and simmering about three straight losses. A win for Baltimore means a LOT more to them than the Broncos right now.

Yes. Not many teams in the NFL go on 4-game losing streaks. . .especially with the talent that they have on that roster. And not many teams in the NFL go on 7-game winning streaks either.

Add in them having a bye to stew about it, and we've got to play in their house? We'll have our hands full for sure.

Dortoh
10-26-2009, 10:06 AM
You are on the map :salute:

Dreadnought
10-26-2009, 10:09 AM
Hey, nice find. I like that '86 Giants comparison, so will hold on to the hope that is the kind of success we will have. :D

Krieger obviously ripped off your idea....:coffee:

OK, well, not actually, but a nice bit of exposure! Well done!

TXBRONC
10-26-2009, 10:09 AM
That's pretty cool that Broncsoforums got mentioned in the Denver Post.

Tned I see the same thing. It wont be an easy game and fully expect the Ravens to come out strong because they are in more of must win situation.

TXBRONC
10-26-2009, 10:12 AM
Yes. Not many teams in the NFL go on 4-game losing streaks. . .especially with the talent that they have on that roster. And not many teams in the NFL go on 7-game winning streaks either.

Add in them having a bye to stew about it, and we've got to play in their house? We'll have our hands full for sure.

Even though I expect Denver to have their hands full like said I'm confident that they have good chance beating them.

topscribe
10-26-2009, 10:15 AM
Even though Baltimore has stubled, losing three straight, winning in Baltimore is tough. I think it will be even tougher with them coming off the bye and simmering about three straight losses. A win for Baltimore means a LOT more to them than the Broncos right now.

Hmmm . . . it seems I heard much the same thing about the Chargers last week.
In fact, the Chargers had even more incentive than do the Ravens.

It seems to me that McDaniels has the Broncos thinking on an even keel. That
might be a significant difference between the Broncos and many of the other
teams: The Broncos view the game immediately in front of them . . . every
game . . . as a must win, regardless of their record or outside circumstances.

I remember an interview of George Blanda about his Oakland Raiders back in
their glory years and what he said about their success. He said that most teams
go into games hoping for a win The Raiders, he continued, go into those games
expecting to win.

It's becoming apparent that this form of expectation just might be overtaking
the Broncos' locker room.

-----

NightTrainLayne
10-26-2009, 10:18 AM
Since we've been talking about Byes. . .

Don't look now, but the Steelers have a Bye as well this week. We get three good opponents in a row coming off of byes. We've already dispatched the Chargers. One down, two more to go.

BroncoWave
10-26-2009, 10:19 AM
Even though Baltimore has stubled, losing three straight, winning in Baltimore is tough. I think it will be even tougher with them coming off the bye and simmering about three straight losses. A win for Baltimore means a LOT more to them than the Broncos right now.

I read this exact same thing a hundred times before the SD game and look how that turned out. I just don't buy that logic. Just because it's important for the Ravens doesn't mean it's not important for the Broncos too. I mean, yeah, we might get the Ravens' best shot but who's to say we won't give them ours? The way McD is preparing this team, every game is the biggest game of the year and I don't see the Broncos going any easier on them because we are 6-0 or because they have lost 3 straight.

If the Ravens win, it will simply be because they outplayed us; not because they needed it more or because it was more important to them.

Tned
10-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Yes. Not many teams in the NFL go on 4-game losing streaks. . .especially with the talent that they have on that roster. And not many teams in the NFL go on 7-game winning streaks either.

Add in them having a bye to stew about it, and we've got to play in their house? We'll have our hands full for sure.

I was really hoping they would win last week, because I didn't want to go in there with them on a 3 game losing streak.

NightTrainLayne
10-26-2009, 10:23 AM
I was really hoping they would win last week, because I didn't want to go in there with them on a 3 game losing streak.

We will get their best shot.

But. .. they will get ours as well. ;)

Dirk
10-26-2009, 10:24 AM
And people come on here and ask why we like it here. Even the DP reads here!

Way to go!!

Tned the beast!

underrated29
10-26-2009, 10:25 AM
that was a well written article. He did good research and gave name to where he found it. It flowed smoothly. I liked it.

Of course, the giants comparison also touched me in a nice way.


We should be fine. Its the high powered offenses that worry me. Starting with Balt. They could explode. when i prediceted we started 6-1, balt was our first loss.

But, i think we make it through them. Pits,indy,giants-those will be games that we are going to have to ball out for. Our defense can limit them to a managable game, but our offense needs to overcome that- right now not sure if the offense is clicking enough to make that jump.

NameUsedBefore
10-26-2009, 10:27 AM
Holy shit I gotta post in that thread and get famous.

broncofaninfla
10-26-2009, 10:40 AM
It's nice to know the Denver Post writers are lurking on this site. Shows why this is THE BEST Broncos fan site on the web.

Tned
10-26-2009, 10:58 AM
that was a well written article. He did good research and gave name to where he found it. It flowed smoothly. I liked it.

Of course, the giants comparison also touched me in a nice way.


We should be fine. Its the high powered offenses that worry me. Starting with Balt. They could explode. when i prediceted we started 6-1, balt was our first loss.

But, i think we make it through them. Pits,indy,giants-those will be games that we are going to have to ball out for. Our defense can limit them to a managable game, but our offense needs to overcome that- right now not sure if the offense is clicking enough to make that jump.

With the Giants comparison, all we need is for Simms to have to take over due to injury (let's say food poisoning for Orton) the day of the SB game, then go out and have career day, maybe going 21-24 passing, or something like that.... :D

Lonestar
10-26-2009, 11:06 AM
Just as it was a must win for SAN last week. Every game is a MUST win for true playoff teams.

I used to fear East Coast games because we sucked there. But the wicked witch is dead, long live the good witch Josh.

He understands you have to prepare for "game conditions" whether it be being prepared for weather, altitude or major TIME differences like playing an early east coast game that can be as much as 5 hours earlier than they are used to be playing.

He simply adjusts the practice schedule to make sure our guys are awake and coherent at kickoff. Opposed showing up late in the game like we used to.

I guess it did not take a mastermind to figure that little tidbit out.

dogfish
10-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Since we've been talking about Byes. . .

Don't look now, but the Steelers have a Bye as well this week. We get three good opponents in a row coming off of byes. We've already dispatched the Chargers. One down, two more to go.

good-- gives 'em an extra week to tremble in their cleats. . . .

TXBRONC
10-26-2009, 11:27 AM
good-- gives 'em an extra week to tremble in their cleats. . . .

I don't know it they're trembling in their cleats but it wouldn't be surprising if they feeling a little uncomfortable. :cool:

AgentOrange
10-26-2009, 12:03 PM
He understands you have to prepare for "game conditions" whether it be being prepared for weather, altitude or major TIME differences like playing an early east coast game that can be as much as 5 hours earlier than they are used to be playing.

He simply adjusts the practice schedule to make sure our guys are awake and coherent at kickoff. Opposed showing up late in the game like we used to.

One thing we'll have going for us in the time change this weekend. Essentially, they'll have to adjust to only one hour difference on Sunday as opposed to two hours. It's minor, but every little thing helps.

Lonestar
10-26-2009, 12:17 PM
One thing we'll have going for us in the time change this weekend. Essentially, they'll have to adjust to only one hour difference on Sunday as opposed to two hours. It's minor, but every little thing helps.

good catch, but you also forgot we play almost all of our games LATE at 1400 Mountain time not 1100 east coast time that is really NOW 4 hours difference on their body clock..

BCJ
10-26-2009, 02:09 PM
I was really hoping they would win last week, because I didn't want to go in there with them on a 3 game losing streak.

Im glad they have 3 losses in a row. Why have them feeling good about themselves? Remember, this team was listed as #1 by many "experts" after 3 weeks. Now they have crashed to a .500 record and can go under that with another loss. There is no way they wanted to face us after losing 3 in a row. A team like that wants to feed off of something like Western Michigan, South Dakota State or the Raiders the next week. Plus, they have had not one week, but two weeks after that last loss. That has got to leave a bad taste in their mouth.

Tned
10-26-2009, 02:15 PM
Im glad they have 3 losses in a row. Why have them feeling good about themselves? Remember, this team was listed as #1 by many "experts" after 3 weeks. Now they have crashed to a .500 record and can go under that with another loss. There is no way they wanted to face us after losing 3 in a row. A team like that wants to feed off of something like Western Michigan, South Dakota State or the Raiders the next week. Plus, they have had not one week, but two weeks after that last loss. That has got to leave a bad taste in their mouth.

I'm a streak guy. I tend to think that it is hard to sustain a winning streak, and all but the worst teams, have trouble stringing four or five losses in a row. I don't think Baltimore is a bad team.

I know logically, that all that should matter is match ups, but intuitively, I hate dealing with 'streaks' that seem unsustainable.

TXBRONC
10-26-2009, 02:30 PM
I'm a streak guy. I tend to think that it is hard to sustain a winning streak, and all but the worst teams, have trouble stringing four or five losses in a row. I don't think Baltimore is a bad team.

I know logically, that all that should matter is match ups, but intuitively, I hate dealing with 'streaks' that seem unsustainable.

Do you also avoid cracks in the sidewalk? :D

Actually I hear ya and think along the same lines.

BigDaddyBronco
10-26-2009, 02:33 PM
That's pretty cool. I :salute: you Tned.

As for the article, we are bound to stumble a little bit over the next 10 games. How this team reacts to a loss or two, and the resulting adversity will be a big indicator of what we can do in the Playoffs.

First step, is we need to worry about Baltimore. Winning there, on the road, after they've had a bye as well, will be a big challenge.
Suck up.

Tned
10-26-2009, 02:35 PM
Do you also avoid cracks in the sidewalk? :D

Actually I hear ya and think along the same lines.

No, but when I walk down the street, I have to touch every parking meter one time...

:lol:

TXBRONC
10-26-2009, 02:38 PM
No, but when I walk down the street, I have to touch every parking meter one time...

:lol:

Ok Mr. Monk. :laugh:

frauschieze
10-26-2009, 08:41 PM
good catch, but you also forgot we play almost all of our games LATE at 1400 Mountain time not 1100 east coast time that is really NOW 4 hours difference on their body clock..

Actually, it's neither one hour or four.

A game at 11 am EST on "Fall Back Sunday" is equivalent to 12 pm EDT which is two hours difference from 2 pm MDT.

T.K.O.
10-26-2009, 09:16 PM
:confused:this is making my brain hurt......could we beat them at high noon on "any given sunday"?

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:19 PM
It also means our countdown clock is going to be wrong, but God help me if I know how to fix it. I'm confussed.

frauschieze
10-26-2009, 09:20 PM
It also means our countdown clock is going to be wrong, but God help me if I know how to fix it. I'm confussed.

Add one hour. It's fall back time. :D

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Add one hour. It's fall back time. :D

I'm still feeling the effects of my cold, so bear with me.

So, if I change kickoff from 12:00 to 1:00 in the countdown code it should be right? For some reason that seems backwards, but then again I'm not sure I could spell my name right now.

AgentOrange
10-26-2009, 09:30 PM
I'm still feeling the effects of my cold, so bear with me.

So, if I change kickoff from 12:00 to 1:00 in the countdown code it should be right? For some reason that seems backwards, but then again I'm not sure I could spell my name right now.
That'll do it. Just remember to change it back after 12:00 AM Sunday (when I assume the server's time will change) or it'll be wrong again.

And Frau's got it right - it's only a two hour difference than if we were playing an afternoon game before the time change.

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:31 PM
That'll do it. Just remember to change it back after 12:00 AM Sunday (when I assume the server's time will change) or it'll be wrong again.

And Frau's got it right - it's only a two hour difference than if we were playing an afternoon game before the time change.

I kept the time as 12:00, but changed the UTC offset from -5 to -6, which I think means the countdown is off by an hour now, but will be correct once we fall back.

Sound right?

frauschieze
10-26-2009, 09:32 PM
I'm still feeling the effects of my cold, so bear with me.

So, if I change kickoff from 12:00 to 1:00 in the countdown code it should be right? For some reason that seems backwards, but then again I'm not sure I could spell my name right now.

According to NFL.com, the game starts at 1 pm Eastern. 1 pm EST = 2 pm EDT (we're on DT right now and need to move back an hour to hit ST). So you should change kickoff to 2 pm.

I think.

Tned
10-26-2009, 09:34 PM
According to NFL.com, the game starts at 1 pm Eastern. 1 pm EST = 2 pm EDT (we're on DT right now and need to move back an hour to hit ST). So you should change kickoff to 2 pm.

I think.

I do everything in UAT (universal Arkansas time), or central time as some of you know it ;)

Hence the 12:00 and 1:00 :D

frauschieze
10-26-2009, 09:37 PM
I do everything in UAT (universal Arkansas time), or central time as some of you know it ;)

Hence the 12:00 and 1:00 :D

Good gravy....I knew you weren't using God's time (Mountain) but at least Eastern makes more sense than UAT. :rolleyes:

AgentOrange
10-26-2009, 09:40 PM
I think ya got it Tned. Whew!