Win enough games to make it into the playoffs—win the playoff games—and the game after the playoffs.

When a guy fumbles, unless it is the QB, you have an opportunity to limit his reps from that point forward, as a risk management factor. THey aren’t as detrimental to long term (i.e. length of a game) momentum.

But almost all INTs come from the same source, the QB. Taking the ball out of his hands is a limited proposition, especially given the catch-22 nature of INTs: if you throw INTs there is a better than average chance that you will need to throw the ball more to win, since you will be behind. This means that the effect of an INT can carry for longer than a fumble (either in the psyche of the QB, or in the fact of increasing the pressure on him and making his job even more difficult), and thus have a slightly larger effect.

Interesting post steve.

Personally I voted for the second one. I would rather see balance. A blend of both that keeps defenses guessing. It’s kind of like golf, when every club in your bag is great, your great, so I hope to utilize every weapon.

I run the ball with a lead. QBs play better when the defense doesn’t anticipate a pass on every play. When we run the ball more, Cutler has a much higher chance of making completions, and a lesser chance of INTs over the course of the game. And of course, we weaken the the defense and the clock winds down.

With the exciting and formidable weapons we have on offense, any fan in their right mind wants to see an aerial display. But our passing game will be more effective and efficient if coupled with a solid running game.

Agreed.
We need a mix.
If the running game is moving the chains the whole game, and converting 3rd and shorts this sets up the passing agem, and essentially makes it a lot easier for Cutler and the offense as the defense cant drop the DBs back into double coverage.
Will it be as spectacular….no. But we will score easily and often, and have complete control of the game.

Maybe the reason is psychological. When a QB throws an interception he tends to lose confidence and/or play more conservatively, so the offense starts spinning its wheels. A runningback fumbling is not as critical. You can just plug in another back, and even if you don’t I don’t think it impacts the offense nearly as much. So the interception leaves the defense in better position when it comes on the field, but the negative impact it has on subsequent offensive (!) play more than offsets that momentary (relative) advantage. I noticed a clear pattern during our losing streak. The offense would move right down the field, then turn the ball over, usually on a pick, and after that would struggle. Each time I would think, well, we’ve lost a possible touchdown and therefore put ourselves at a temporary disadvantage (or lost a temporary advantage), but our offense is so good we can overcome it. But each time the offense struggled after that and we continued to lose ground. And the effect was cumulative from game to game. If that was Cutler’s one rocky period this year, and if he’s over it, we’re in good shape for the stretch run.

Coaches automaticaly run the ball if “ball protection” is the issue. The assumption in football thought is that running the ball is risk averse, while passing leads to higher rewards, but much more risk.

Thus, when a team throws an int, they are more likely to cast blame on the QB, the WR, or the playcaller. A fumble is considered so unlikely that the incident is quickly forgotten. In fact, from a psychological perspective, an INT is considered the “fault” of the QB more than credited to the defensive player, while a fumble is often thought to be the resulty of a good hit or strip that was likely unpreventable.

I’m not saying that we don’t jump on RBs for not holding onto the ball (especially if it happens too much), but on a deeper level of consciousness, I think we are quicker to blame ourselves for INTs than for fumbles.

We discussed the the R/P balance issue at the end of the pre-season, when it became apparent that the Broncos were (apparently) going to be passing more this year than in the past. The 55-P/45-R division that existed at the time sparked an interesting debate over the Bronco’s future plans on offense.

I’m not sure what to make of the RISK FRIENDLY/RISK AVERSIVE framing of our offensive plans. I doubt that risk is the driving consideration when game-planning for opponents.

Echoing some comments that were made by me and others during the debate at the end of pre-season — the NFL has become more of a passing league over time and the run first teams of yore aren’t representative of current football strategy. Teams often use the pass, or threat thereof, to set up the run. Running in this case can be an indication that the opposing defense is ‘more’ worried about the threat of the pass. And so the amount of R/P plays isn’t a passive indicator of a team’s choice but rather an ‘artifact’ of plays chosen within an interactive strategic context.

I do think the Broncos’ running game has been slower to develop this season and that’s had a lot to do with the play calling choices. I also think the passing game has been a strength, which has made it easier to call passing plays. The injury situation at RB is also part of why we’ve relied on the pass, among various other reasons. The R/P balance has been shifting towards the run but “balanced” in today’s football is somewhere around 55-P/45-R.

I’m sure that Shanny would love to use the run more than we have but circumstances haven’t allowed it. Results have been good despite the injury situation, perhaps partly because of the gelling of OL. It says something that we’re succeeding with a converted rookie FB at RB.