Is San Diego's run game REALLY that scary????

by boydy2669 on Sep 12, 2008 8:23 PM MDT

Hi Everyone,

Like you guys, I was stoked on the way that our Broncos played on Monday night. BUT, unlike many, I am not buying into that our run D sucked. we gave up yards in the 4th quarter when playing prevent defense (as was brought up by one of our knowledgable posters here I believe) and take away that 41 yards from Fargas, we would have held the Raiders to an average of around 3 yards.

This got me thinking: How much better REALLY, is the Chargers running attack vs. the Raiders running attack? I believe the Raiders attack has and will improve. When I look at the Chargers running attack, I actually think it has taken a large step back. Here's why.

I will go on record and say I think that LT is one of the greatest ever BUT, alot of his success was predicated on the road plowing that Lorenzo Neal did for him. Neal is no longer with the team. It is only in the last 2 years that LT has had any success against Denver...up till then he had struggled to get over 80 yards per game vs the Denver D. And heres the biggest thing....Michael Turner was the bigger threat than LT. When LT was struggling at Mile High last year, Micheal Turner GASHED us. He is no longer there either. WIll Darren Sproles and Jacob Hester be as effective or explosive? I dont think so.

So, I pose this question: Are we all buying into the hype of this much vaunted running game? Damn straight, it is good, but is in any more explosive or dangerous than the Raiders running offense, and we held them in check pretty well.

What do you guys think?

Thanks Broncos crew!

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

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great comment.

Lorenzo ruled – wil LDT be as good without him? And without a major part of the O line? That’s a lot to lose, no question. Good point – recommended!

Atwater for the Hall!

by Doc Bear on Sep 12, 2008 8:39 PM MDT reply actions

I have been right with you....

On MHR Radio, I broke down the rushing stats by quarter, and it wasn’t until the game was out of hand that the Raiders really started getting chunks of yards. The key, in my opinion, is the offense. If they score they way they have been scoring all year, teams won’t be able to run…

-TSG

SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport

Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com

by John Bena on Sep 12, 2008 8:40 PM MDT reply actions

I was down on the run d

until you really broke it down for me. So I feel much better about the run d now

Though the end is near, Still I am not sorry

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 13, 2008 11:30 AM MDT up reply actions

Thanks

Thanks boys!
I just think people might be trying to find weaknesses that may not be there. Am I saying that our D Line is the best in the NFL? No, but it is not the same line OR SCHEME as last year.
It will be interesting!

by boydy2669 on Sep 12, 2008 8:42 PM MDT reply actions

The Raiders are the better rushing team!!!

In 2007, The Raiders finished 6th in the league in rushing with 130.4 ypg and SD finished 7th with 127.4 ypg. And you’re absolutely right that the Raiders running game should be improved with the addition of DMC and a healthy Bush while SD lost two backs who were essential component of their rushing attack. Another consideration is the importance of a great offensive line in the Charger’s running attack. Their line is bruised and battered and will inevitably not be it’s usual pancaking self. Everyone talks about their offense but the defense is SD’s greatest strength. The defense was the 14th best in the NFL while their offense was 20th. Like Zappa said…we may have a paper tiger on our hands.

I don’t mean to sound condescending but I think you need to watch the Raiders game again. Our rushing defense wasn’t even remotely impressive. Even in the first and second quarters the Oakland backs frequently had over five yards before a Denver player even got a hand on them. I don’t know why they ever passed.

Besides that good post.

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 12, 2008 8:43 PM MDT reply actions

YPG is a terrible metric

we were ranked 22nd in the league in DVOA rushing the ball. I’ve been trying to get this point across to the silverandblackpride guys with little efffect to this point. I do agree that we ran really well against the donkey’s on Monday night though.

San Diego was ranked 11th in DVOA, which is very good, but not up to their hype I’d say.

by RaiderPete on Sep 12, 2008 9:07 PM MDT up reply actions

You guys got a huge upgrade with potential to spare

I mean, what in the heck is gonna happen with Bush?

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 12, 2008 9:15 PM MDT up reply actions

I really don't have a clue actually

Barring injury he’ll most likely not see a lot of time and walk at the end of his rookie contract. Or become the Tui of running backs, I don’t know.

by RaiderPete on Sep 12, 2008 10:19 PM MDT up reply actions

You guys could probably get a decent trade for him...

And fill some other postitions of need. Mayben an O lineman and a draft pick?

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 12, 2008 11:17 PM MDT up reply actions

By the way...

I don’t think ypg is a “terrible statistic” and DVOA has it’s own issues.

I seem to recall that we’ve been in a debate over the importance of this stat or the other stat and I don’t think we got anywhere so I don’t wish to reignite that debate. Ultimately I think we’ll both agree that the only stat that really matters is the scoreboard at the end of the game.

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 13, 2008 2:33 AM MDT up reply actions

Stats like YPG are much less ambiguously bad than others

It’s also the type of stat that DVOA measures particularly well, it doesn’t have some of the issues that WR DVOA has with measuring the surrounding cast.

The Raiders lead the league in YPG because we ran a lot last year, not so much because they were particularly awesome at it, but because our passing game was awful and we had to. It’s probably not as bad as DVOA would say though because of the same reason, we had to run and teams knew we would, so 8 men in the box was not uncommon. We were a pretty average rushing team overall, from what I saw.

by RaiderPete on Sep 13, 2008 5:46 PM MDT up reply actions

maybe, we let you...

considering you needed 4 touchdowns to get back into the game, and time was ticking away. blockquote>we ran really well against the donkey’s on Monday night though.

so is that your solace after the epic shellacking you were handed at your home-opener on “gu night”. how are we gonna feel with a raider patch on our jerseys getting run over in the black hole? feeling great, bud. not up to the hype, alright. go home, and take macnothing with you

by davecheffy on Sep 12, 2008 10:06 PM MDT up reply actions

wut?

by RaiderPete on Sep 12, 2008 10:15 PM MDT up reply actions

Pete isn't doing anything to provoke anybody.

And yes, the faders did run pretty well against us. We did run a very vanilla defense all night, and hopefully Slowik’s scheme will help us be more effective against the run. And Pete, what does DVOA stand for?

1-0.

by papigrande on Sep 13, 2008 5:41 AM MDT up reply actions

DVOA

From Wikipedia:

"DVOA is the acronym for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. The original Football Outsiders statistic, it was created by Aaron Schatz, and has since seen several updates. The statistic measures the success of a given play, then compares it to the league-average level of success for that play given the situation at the time (score, time remaining, down and distance to go, location on the field, caliber of opponent, and so on). The system is applied to every play of the season, to provide DVOA rankings both for individual players and teams as a whole.

In all cases, a DVOA rating of 0% is equivalent to league-average performance. Positive DVOA numbers represent above-average performance by the offense and below-average performance by the defense, while negative numbers represent the opposite."

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 13, 2008 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions

i just don't like being called the donkeys. ever.

maybe that’s accepted by the younger fans, but i find it insulting. if i went to the silverandblackpride after getting destroyed at home, and commented about how well we ran the ball on the faggers(or whatever), i think i would be considered a rude visitor, and frankly, an idiot. we gave them useless yards in a blowout game to let the clock run down. that’s it. that was part of OUR gameplan at the time, to yes, let them run for a few yards. they broke 1 run. don’t get too caught up in stats, they were dominated. a 27-point lead will skew the numbers for ya. here’s a # that matters-o. their total points after 3 quarters. the rest is fluff, and insignificant.

i was also responding to the many raiders fans who put up posts and comments over here before the game about the jersey patch thing, the demise of ‘the rat"(not too fond of that one, either), and how d-macnothing is going to run all over us. nothing personal, if any current commenters come over here that weren’t part of that

hear me, perpetrators of bread crime, your punishment is at hand.
taste my blintzkrieg!

by davecheffy on Sep 13, 2008 1:39 PM MDT up reply actions

faggers?? Really???

Well ya, that would be offensive… also a bit more extreme than donkeys. How about you stick to faders like everyone else. And I’m not a fan of “Ratahan” either, just so you know, but you will forever be the donkey’s whether you win or lose to us. Thats just how it is, and judging from your, um… passion… I’d be willing to bet you understand.

And no, the Raiders didn’t just run well at the end of the game. We ran pretty successfully the entire game, but the failures of our passing game (although I was encouraged by Russell overall) and getting down by eleventybillion points kind of put a hamper on that. Go go Eddie Royal matched up on a linebacker…

And my comment about not up to the hype was about San Diego’s running game. Don’t get my wrong, it’s very good, but I think it’s seen as a top 3 rushing offense and I don’t know that it’s quite there.

by RaiderPete on Sep 13, 2008 5:39 PM MDT up reply actions

lol

Go go Eddie Royal matched up on a linebacker…

Has MeAngelo been demoted to LB? He sure got burned like one several hundred times.

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

by Steve Nichols on Sep 14, 2008 1:50 PM MDT up reply actions

I totally agree with you, Mermaid...

I think that Oakland’s running game is, indeed, comparable to da Bolts, but I was just not impressed with Denver’s run defense—even in the first three quarters—on Monday night. The issue is not that San Diego’s running game is vastly better, it’s that they’re smart enough to use it more and more effectively. The Raiders’ play calling was horrendous. They went from being scared to pass to being unwilling (mysteriously) to run, and showed little creativity and even less ability to diagnose what was working and adjust accordingly. They’re not nearly as unskilled as they showed on Monday, but Shanny won the coaching battle by a country mile. San Diego will be a much tougher test, but I do think the Broncos are up to the challenge, primarily because their offense has a good chance to keep pace.

by Broncs Cheer on Sep 12, 2008 9:05 PM MDT reply actions

You hit the nail on the head.

I fully expect the Chargers to capably and creatively utilize their run game on Sunday. The biggest thing is for our defense to make tackles. Holding a 6 yard gain to a 3 yard gain by making a solid tackle makes a world of difference in the YPG numbers and goes a long way toward winning the game. Fortunately, I thought we did a pretty good job of tackling on Monday on all but a few plays.

The biggest area of improvement is on the defensive line. Against oakland, our D-line did little to disrupt the blocking schemes, and often allowed themselves to be blocked thw wrong way, which is the main reason that oakland’s running backs were able to get to the second level before being touched. Of course, at this point oakland’s underrated line is better than San Diego’s beat-up one, so we’ll just have to see how it plays out in the trenches.

1-0.

by papigrande on Sep 12, 2008 9:50 PM MDT up reply actions

You're right papi...

The surge at the offensive line freguently went the Broncos direction. If Denver wants to have a good rush defense their going to need to find ways to penetrate the opponents backfield and disrupt running blows before the back has an opportunity to gain momentum. Unfortunately we simply were not able to do that against the Raiders.

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 12, 2008 11:28 PM MDT up reply actions

Penetration comes with time

but we will get it in a one-gap scheme. Worst case scenario is we have to devolve into using our backers to get a line on its heels before our dline can establish. You lose flexibility in coverage and can allow some HUGE runs that way, so it isn’t ideal. Better to get penetration form the front four.

I will be watching Drob and Thomas closely in this game. They are truly our best hope for backfield penetration, and I want to see signs that they are getting in sync with the ends and with eachother. i don’t doubt that it will come, but urgency would be nice.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 13, 2008 10:26 AM MDT up reply actions

BTW

this is a rough approximation. Hopefully HT can be more specific (and correct me if I’m wrong). :(

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 13, 2008 10:27 AM MDT up reply actions

I agree with your take.

Nicely done.

Even if we don’t get the penetration, if the DL at least gets a gap plugged, they buy time for the LBs to (OODA Loop) observe and react to the runners. If we indeed play a blitz scheme, then the penetration becomes more important.

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

by Steve Nichols on Sep 13, 2008 3:44 PM MDT up reply actions

I think you're right about the creative use of LT...

I think he’s particularly dangerous when catching out of the backfield on screens and flat routes. The receiveing and YAC ability comined with his talents running the football are what really make LT who he is.

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 12, 2008 11:29 PM MDT up reply actions

Yes

I’m going to be worried about the Charger’s running attack until I see us stop it.

by nburns on Sep 12, 2008 9:44 PM MDT reply actions

Ok

Thru 3 qtrs denver was up 27-0 and had held the faders to ZERO points and 130 yards total offense. I was like most of you and umimpressed with the run defense. But in the 4th qtr Denver sat back and was letting the faders get yards. Which would allow the clock to keep ticking. The first drive it seemed as if the faders were getting some good runs, then Denver adjusted. the faders had 150 yards rushing an 42 on a carry in the 4th when the game was done. Now I would love to see Denver hold teams to 50 yards rushing but its not gonna happen. Plus of one thing that make me is happy is when the HC of the Broncos says he pleased, and only thinks they lost intensity in the 4th qtr. So off that if Shanny likes what he sees from his rush defense, well my friends that speaks louder than us debating it and throwing out some stat that I dont care to understand or really thing is that important. I will have you all rememeber 1997. The broncos allowed 4.6 yards per carry and almost 120 a game, and WON THE SUPER BOWL

Though the end is near, Still I am not sorry

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 13, 2008 11:38 AM MDT reply actions