Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jim Irsay: We Can Make It Work With Peyton Manning

NPLB Scoring Report: Game 13

Welcome back to the weekly NPLB postgame drive analysis.  It would seem that with 41 points scored there would not be much to say about the performance.  Some would advocate pats on the back all around, and lets get ready for next week.  Here at the NPLB we firmly believe that it is precisely situations like these which allow us to discover even more about our team, and thus the analysis will continue on.  We even have a few criticisms.  But we will get to those eventually.

First a recap of the drives.  The Broncos had 13 drives, 7 scoring, 6 non-scoring.  At first glance, this may seem like marked improvement.  But look again.  We had 13 drives against the Faders as well.  Only 4 were scoring drives, and they produced 20 total points.  Almost double the drives in the next game, and doubled points as well.  We here at NPLB aren't necessarily seeking more scoring drives, not in essence at any rate.  More scoring drives is nice, but we believe that those will come as a matter course.  We are primarily concerned with the effectiveness of the scoring drives that we do have, and we believe that addressing this is at the heart of improving our offensive play.  Look at the drive stats again.  4 drives netting 20 points.  7 drives netting 41 points.  They are essentially the same, scoring 5-5 1/2 points per drive.  We weren't more effective, we just had more opportunities.  Obviously evaluation is required still, if we are to become DEADLY on offense.

The non-scoring drives were as follows:

3rd     Punt  
4th     Punt
10th    Punt
11th    Punt
12th    Punt
13th    End of Game

The NPLB takes absolutely no issue with the final four drives, as the game was well in hand for those drives, and the primary goal had gone from scoring to draining the clock.  The two 3-and-outs in the first quarter netted a total of 12 yards between the two of them.  One is credited to KC defense for a sack with a loss of 6, and the other is credited to the Denver playcalling for running Selvin Young in a short yardage 3rd down for no gain.  They are not however to be penalized for this call, as no fault is found for attempting at that point to see how critical Henry was to the short yardage game.  None of the above non-scoring drives are found to reflect poorly on the Denver offense.

Turning now to the 7 scoring drives:

1st     TD
2nd     TD
5th     TD
6th     FG
7th     FG
8th     TD
9th     TD

A lot of TDs is good to see, and as you can already tell, our criticisms will not seem major.  First a look at the TD drives.  After kick starting the day with a 50 yd Selvin Young run, the first three TD drives were beauties, mixing pass and playaction with Young between the twenties and Henry in the redzone.  The playcalling was immaculate.  After setting KC up wide with huge gains to Marshall and a TD to Stokely, they finished up by driving down passing to the TEs in the seam.  Admittedly the early success made the playbook seem huge, but they should recieve Kudos for yanking the KC defense around by the jockstrap for a full half, dictating when and where, and making KC look foolish.  The Stokely TD on the first drive, where he basically was gimping by the KC defender is a fantastic summary of the half as a whole.  

In a moment we will review the final drive of the first half, but first we will quickly note that the final two scoring drives, both resulting in TDs in the 3rd quarter are evaluated uniquely by the NPLB.  Obviously we have no problem with the two TDs.  But we should point out that since both drives started in KC territory,  only TDs would have been acceptable at that point of the game.  FGs would have been failures, considering that the Denver offense had the KC defense broken and right where they wanted them, and anything less than utter domination to put the game away would have not been acceptable.  I have it from top NPLB brass that this would have been their official position had not the Broncos taken care of business on those drives.

Finally we direct our attention to the two FG drives.  

6th Drive:  It is noted that the first of the two, the 1:11 drive that culminated in a FG with 1 sec was really a spectacular drive that capitalized on everything Denver had been doing right up to that point.  Young started things off with a 30yd gain, effectively putting Denver into a scoring mode.  Both Marshall and Scheffler caught passes, and fought for extra yards.  The NPLB, however, does have a small issue with this drive, and we believe that had the issue been corrected, we would have been one step closer to consistent domination.  The problem is that while the drive consisted of great elements that had been working all day, it should have consisted of something a little different.  To wit, with 50 seconds left to play, players caught balls and failed to get out of bounds, instead fighting for YAC.  The argument about only giving up the middle of the field does not apply here, as both times the players caught the ball at the sidelines.  Both were young players, Scheffler and Marshall, and both successfully picked up a few additional yards, but the NPLB firmly holds that a player who was properly focused would have stepped out of bounds, on one or both plays, gaining 1-3 more total plays on offense, as both plays together cost Denver almost 40 seconds of clock.  Those three plays from about the KC 19 would have been a tremendous opportunity for a TD.  Credit where credit is due, and it was a great drive, but...
4 POINTS LEFT BEHIND

7th Drive:  This drive did not have nearly the beauty of the first three.  After a KC 3-and-out to start the half, Denver began this drive at their own 34, poised to put the game out of reach.  Offensive holding, this time on Daniel Graham, negated what was essentially the game plan for that particualr drive, calling back a great 1st down run by Selvin Young.  After that call, Young did not get another look until it was too late.  Denver only managed to drive 45 yards (after the penalty was added), and were aided once by a penalty on KC which gave them an additional first down to work with.  In the end the choice to run Young twice in the redzone followed by an incompletion on a drive that stuttered continuously and failed to gain momentum, resulted in a chip shot for Elam from inside the redzone.  This is never acceptable by the NPLBs standards, though in this instance fault is hard to place.  In this case we have decided to place it with Daniel Graham for commiting the first and only offensive penalty in the game for the Broncos, this coming after halftime, after adjustments, and at a critical juncture.  Just as the drive gained momentum on a long run, it lost it just as soon on a stupid penalty.
4 POINTS LEFT BEHIND

A case could be made, and rightly so, that "You can't win them all," and that perfection isn't attainable.  Maybe so.  The NPLB doesn't care about that though.  We expect perfection, and we look forward to domination, thus the fact that we can find fault with a 41 to 7 drubbing of the rival Chiefs.  8 points left behind would have put us close to 50 points, a powerhouse offense by any standard in any era.  And against a team like the chiefs, that is exactly where we should be.

Official Ruling
Credit for this game goes to Selvin Young and the Broncos playcallers, with a hearty nod to Cutler's mistake free, 4TD performance.  It is noted that on every drive where the Broncos scored a TD, they relied on Selvin Young for a spark.  When they failed to get him involved, or lost the benefit of his efforts due to a penalty, they fell short of domination.  He is recognized as the key to this weeks game, while the Broncos playcallers, even after they spent the week pulling double duty for the Texans on Thursday, called a brilliant first half that effectively oiled up and put into high gear all the componenets of the Broncos offense.  Kudos to both!!  O-line play (including Graham) will continue to get a look-see, but improvement from last week was notable, as Cutler was breathed on once, by Tamba Hali, and left alone for the rest of the day.  As always, this young team and its veterans need to continue to gain experience together, and hopefully that will address the issue of focus in the future.  They could have, perhaps should have put up 50 on the Chiefs.  That they didn't says they are still a step away from utter domination.  This game proves we have the tools to be an elite offense.  But do we have the Will?

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Comment 3 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

One thing about NPLB
How much weight do you give to the following:

I never called offensive plays.  On a few rare instances I had to head coach on the sideline, but in those instances I always left the playcalling to the expert (the offensive coord).  I DID however tell him what my goal was for each drive.  (For those new to MHR, I used to coord high school defense).

So there were times when I said, "I'd rather take the three and play it safe", or "No matter what, we can't risk a turnover here", or "burn the clock".  There is certainly a need to score points, and as many as possible.  But often times the coaching staff plays it more carefuly than the fans like.  (Fans are always dissapointed with FGs, and even like to see teams go for it on fourth down in dicey situations).  Sometimes you can leave points on the field by making short runs up the middle.  Fans also hate this, but fail to take into account that short runs are like body blows and jabs in boxing.  You don't get the knock out, but you are softening up the opposition for later.  Sometimes the goal of the drive isn't even a first down!  Sometimes it is just to hit the d-line hard and to cause the other team to over compensate for the run several drives in a row.

So my bottom line is this.  Do you take into consideration that FGs "leave points behind", but often they are good calls by the staff?

For instance, take the sixth drive.  Let's say it was the final drive of the half (I may be wrong).  In my mind as a DEF coord, I respect the fact that DEN didn't try to get out of bounds and didn't go for the TD.  The reason is simple.  I'm already losing this game, and ANY points the other team puts up hurts my cause.  But my only hope at the end of the half is to get a turnover, or stop the drive completely to stop the bleeding.

With that in mind, the worse thing the offense can do to me is A) get first downs and B) keep the clock going, and C) worst of all to get an easy 3 points against my DEF.  Going for the TD and stopping the clock to do it is EXACTLY what I want for them to do.  

Does it leave four points on the field?  Yes.  Is it fan pleasing?  No.  Is it textbook playcalling?  I believe that it is.

I'm not critical of the NPLB analysis at all.  I think it is at once both a unique and definitive way to investigate the value of drives proportional to scoring.  At the same time, I would hope that conservative playcalling (sometimes painted as a bad thing) gets recognition for being a required tool in itself, even if it goes against the heart of the desire for more points.  I remain a fan of NPLB, I just want to know how much weight gets considered for the boring neccesssity of playcalling that doesn't (on the surface) always lead to more than a FG.

My historical reference is the encirclement of Paulus' Sixth Army at Stalingrad.  He should have settled for the FG (the destruction of Stalingrad and a sizable portion of the Soviet Army), but his head coach wanted it all (touch down, the occupation of Stalingrad).  Head Coach Hitler wouldn't allow the 6th to pull back, reinforce it's northern flank, and continue on the orginal course for the Urals.  Zhukov was able to get the turnover, and the final drive of the quarter.  : )

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Dec 12, 2007 1:50 PM MST reply actions  

The organic nature of the NPLB
This is a tough question to answer.  I'll start by saying that the NPLB is certainly susceptible to error.  I don't know of anyone else looking at scoring from quite this angle, and there is probably a good reason for that.  But until I'm proven otherwise I will maintain that this approach has some underlying value, that even I am still discovering.  I have a primary goal to provide value in the form of analysis that leads to a better understanding of our needs on the team (including defense, sometime in the future).  I have a secondary goal to provide value by at least giving a decent overview of the drive charts, if all else fails.  I am trying to keep my focus centered, and even then I still ramble on for around 2000 words, but there is a ton of information I am leaving out so as not to dilute what I'm trying to analyze here, not to mention because I am having trouble figuring out how to include it and have the sum of the parts add up to more than a vague overview.  Motivation on particular drives is one of them, unless it is completely clear, like the last four drives of this game where the game was pretty much over.  Another is special teams.  Luckily so far there hasn't been a major special teams impact (since I have started the NPLB, at any rate) but sooner or later the special teams will directly contribute to a score somehow, and then I will have to figure it out and include it.  I am learning something every week about the team, and I believe the NPLB in only two installments is already showing that.  It will continue to change as I eliminate things that shouldn't be a consideration and add in things that should.  I am relying on comments like yours from the community to help me discover which is which.

Now to your question.

I try pretty hard to not look at the offensive scoring opportunities in a vaccuum, but sometimes it is difficult because it requires me to insert a lot of other data to back up my claims.  When this happens, I probably don't elaborate as much as I should.  Regarding the final drive of the first half, it could be argued that the coaches had indeed called the plays the way they wanted and got the results they wanted.  But in support of my contention that 4 points were left behind, I give the following:

  1.  Denver has 1:11 to attempt a drive.  They have TOs.  They have decent starting field position.  They have had their way up to this point with the KC defense.  Smart playcalling ensues with a run called to the outside, perhaps in hopes of testing to see if a FG is a viable goal at this point.  Success.
  2.  A 30 yd gain has them thinking FG.  This is where KC gave up yardage outside to Brandon Marshall.  They follow up with Scheffler on the right sideline.  I will forgive him not going out to a certain extent.  But this was 3 times in a row where KC conceded the sideline, whether they were trying to or not.
  3.  At this point Denver has to realize that they need to reevaluate their goal of a FG.  They were in FG range at this point (45+, a long one) but KC is practically giving them 7 right now.  The only thing in my mind seperating Denver from elite right now is the confidence that they can earn points even before they have scored them, as in this example.
  4.  Denver earned a FG by pressing a late advantage in terms of time and field position.  They earned a TD when they tested the outside with success.  They immediately went to the outside again, this time to a tackle-breaking Wideout (Marshall, if you have to ask :) ), but he failed to get out of bounds.  He didn't even try.  They lost enough time for two plays on that particular call, and I believe, settled for the FG after having to use their last timeout.
This is meant to highlight what I think is the accuracy of the anlysis, but in regards to your question, I tried not to let the context of that drive negatively effect what had been a terrific half of playcalling.  

I gave the overall playcalling priority in this light.  In the final ruling I state that credit for the great offensive showing can be attributed to the playcalling, which by default includes the FG drive at the end of the half.  I also waggle my finger at the youth of the team, believing that if Marshall takes it upon himself to get out of bounds in that situation, the coaches merely have more options to consider, and time to reevaluate their position.  I agree with the principles, I take issue with the results.

In the end I think the ruling was fair, and I think it is the NPLB's ability to look outside of the stats and drive charts to both widen the scope of what we are seeing, as well as narrowly focusing on what is significant.  The NPLB's validity in the future depends on this I think.

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 12, 2007 6:04 PM MST up reply actions  

You make a good point I overlooked.
You point out that Denver was using time outs, which goes against my idea that they were trying to run the clock, protect the ball, and settle for the FG.

Either way, I am very much enjoying the NPLB and the unique perspective it brings.  I'm looking forward to the defensive idea you're going to bring as well.

And keep up the "2000 words".  The more I can read, the more I feel I learn.

Thanks again!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Dec 13, 2007 12:22 AM MST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

MileHighReport(MHR) is the ultimate independent resource for the Denver Broncos on the web. Along with MHR Radio, the official podcast of MHR, we look to provide hardcore Denver Broncos fans positive, independent insight about the Broncos, 24/7/365!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Haleycriesalot_small
Pre-Free Agency Thoughts
Pumpkin_small
MLBs - what we have and what Fox and Del Rio historically want
Ph_small
2011: MHR I Need Your Help With An Upcoming Post
Zozobra_small
Explaining What "IT" Is that Tebow Has: An Analysis of the Art of Miracles
Pumpkin_small
The risk/reward analysis on drafting RBs earlier vs later

Recent FanPosts

Small
Broncos Roster needs – offseason 2012
Cube-orange_small
what makes a good nickel cornerback?
Small
Spread-ing History
Denver-broncos-wallpaper_1__small
The First Real Signing
La_la_land_small
Kids In A Candy Store
Small
A Shot at a Mock
Small
Broncos positions of need – off season 2012
0_1979_ford_f100-sequin_small
My GM box 2.0
Pimp_hand_-_the_pimp_hand_is_strong_in_this_one_small
Questions about the Spread Offense
Small
CHEAP SKATES

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Getting Social With MHR

Facebook_badge_medium_medium
Black_generated_button

Milehighreport_email_medium

Web Stuff


 

Listed on BlogShares Top NFL Fan Sites


General Manager/Head Coach

Milehighreport_small John Bena

2011_small KaptainKirk

Asst. Head Coach

Dadndaughter_small Tim Lynch

2_small Sayre Bedinger

Bronco-pride_small Brian Shrout

Broncohoodie_in_africa_small Troy Hufford

Position Coach

Flag_canada_small Colby

182px-jesus_small Jezru

Img_0007_small Topher Doll

Hottie_small Sarah_Marshall

Small zsheely

Quality Control

800px-john_brown_painting_small mdierk