The Broncos on Football Outsiders

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 7:47 PM MDT Comment 42 comments

As always, this is just my opinion.

Well, we've had 5 weeks now to simply enjoy the feeling of winning! It tastes so sweet, I simply love watching the Broncos win. And so far, it feels like our defense has simply been phenomenal over the course of a game and the best ever in the history of the NFL during the second half/4th quarter. Conversely, it seems that our offense has shown weekly improvement and most especially this past week, with the removal of "The Glove", the sky seems to be the limit for what we can do.

D--n it feels good to be a Bronco fan!

But, I like to stay grounded. Like a person who has had bad experiences dating/in marriage, I'm a little gun-shy. I always wait for the other shoe to drop, and like to hedge my bets so I don't get let down too hard. Besides, the memory of Kansas City Week 4 last year is still awfully raw. But over and above all this, I simply don't trust my eyes. I know some here do, and view statistics as being able to magically "prove anything". This statement is blatant hyperbole, but it is unclear exactly what it means. Personally, I know that with my affinity for Fantasy Football and my bias toward the Broncos (to say nothing of my emotional involvement with the offseason storylines) makes me a wickedly unreliable arbiter of fact and truth.

So, I look to others. And the best I have found so far has been the guys at Football Outsiders. They compile an ungodly amount of stats from every season, break down EVERY SINGLE PLAY from EVERY SINGLE TEAM, and then create a statistical web that uses proprietary formulae in order to better account for the complexities of the NFL game. The depth of their research truly is astounding, but it can be overwhelming for those who are not of a statistical bent.

For a brief rundown, check out their "Pregame Show", which is basically a type of 95 Theses that distills years of research into a few easily digestible patterns. It will also be useful to check out their explanation of their major formulae, including their flagship: Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, or DVOA. One final note: it's vital to remember that these statistics are not "pure" -- i.e., they are not raw data like yards or number of plays. They are "tweaked" -- allowances have been made for the quality of the opponents, league average in a given situation, increased importance to red zone or third down, etc. This carries with it some disadvantages, the most pressing being suspicion of manipulation. Yet, given a neutral party that objection comes up pretty hollow. I find that their way of looking at 3rd down efficiency is far superior than the rest of the MSM (i.e., conversion percentage).

So, I've pimped them long enough. What do they have to say about the Broncos' strengths and weaknesses?

Areas of strength: (defined as a top-10 finish, ranked from highest to lowest)

Defending #2 WRs (1st)

Pressuring the quarterback (2nd)

Run defense (3rd)

Offensive line -- Running up the gut (3rd)

Offensive line -- Running right end (4th)

Pass defense (4th)

Overall defense (4th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs of 10+ yards (5th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs to the outside, left (5th)

Overall run blocking (5th)

Defending #3 WRs (6th)

Overall team efficiency (7th)

Pass offense (7th)

Defensive line -- stopping runs up the gut (8th)

Overall pass blocking (10th)

Defending TEs (10th)

Areas for improvement: (defined as between top-10 and bottom-10, ranked least to most need)

Overall offense (11th)

Defensive line -- Overall rush yards allowed (11th)

Offensive line -- Runs to left end (11th)

Offensive line -- Runs to right end (11th)

Rushing offense (12th)

Offensive line -- Running plays of 10+ yards (16th)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the left end (18th)

RBs catching passes (19th)

Areas of Weakness: (defined as bottom-10, ranked from least to most profound)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the outside, right (24th)

Defensive line -- Run stuffing for loss or no gain (24th)

Defensive line -- Short-yardage and goal-line situations (25th)

Offensive line -- Short-yardage and goal-line situations (25th)

Defending #1 WRs (27th)

Offensive line -- Run stuffs for loss or no gain allowed (29th)

Special Teams (29th)

Defensive line -- Stopping runs to the right end (31st)

Offensive line -- Runs to left tackle (31st)

Alright! Everyone's eyes glazed over? In that case, I'll just offer some (semi-)quick thoughts:

It is incredibly heartening to see how many are listed in the Strengths column, and by comparison how few are areas of deficiency.
That being said, our special teams (returning) truly is atrocious. Thank goodness for Prater's leg and his 9 touchbacks (tied for 2nd in the league)
No surprises here: we struggle in short-yardage situations on both sides of the ball.
It appears that the right side of our D-line (left side of the offense) is particularly vulnerable to running plays. Let's see: that would be primarily Doom/Ayers/Moss, plus also Peterson/Holliday, with a little dash of Williams/Woodyard. It will be neat to see Ayers' development as a linebacker on that side, since we need to shore up our running defense there.
No surprise again on needing to stop RBs out of the backfield. I watched Sammy Morris last week and was fervently praying "Not this guy! Not again!" We've got to get that fixed before we meet a guy like Westbrook.
Our rushing offense is a grind-it-out, between the tackles style. Not sure that I particularly prefer a guy like Chris Johnson who is always a home-run threat, but who gets shut down vs. superior defenses. Give me Kno-Mo any day.
There are some on this site who attribute the success of the Broncos entirely (or nearly so) to the defense. Here's a sampling of quotes:

The offense is not the reason for this team’s success – in fact, I give it very, very little credit
This success is a product of the defense alone

This offense is no better at scoring (from anywhere on the field) than last season’s version

Fail.
Some of the defenses in the top 10 are heavy to the pass side and middling on the run side (I'm looking at you, NO and NYG). We have a stellar all-around defense.
What's up with not being able to take on #1 WRs? Football Outsiders gives a disclaimer there that defining WR roles is subjective, but still: Ochocinco had modest yardage, Braylon was shut down, who the heck knows who's a #1 in Oakland, Roy Williams was middling, and Moss only had one catch. Eh. I give up.
I thought that TEs were supposed to be the weak point of a 5-2 hybrid? Apparently not for us...
The Chargers are currently sitting at #23 (overall team efficiency), playing 13.1% below the league average. By all rights, this is a game we should win. Our offensive ranking is respectable and we are facing a defense with and atrocious ranking, our densive ranking is spectacular and is facing an offense with a very pedestrian ranking, and both of us have been ranked in the top 10 in consistency so far. This should be a win. Anyone want to go to Vegas?
Note from the site, not shown above: our schedule ranking so far has been... well, less than we would hope. We are currently sitting at 27th. Remember, this ranking is not based on prejudiced opinions of a biased media, or last year's record, or anything else equally suspect. This is certainly cause for mitigated joy in Broncoland. To compound the difficulty, our upcoming schedule does indeed look tough -- "brutal" might be a slight overstatement -- our schedule is ranked 9th in the NFL in this category.
More from the site: Check out the QB rankings. Orton is sitting comfortably at #7, above Phyllis, Romo, Favre, Warner, and Schaub. Where's HWMNBN? #25.
Go Broncos! Beat the BlueBelles!

But that's just my opinion...

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

16 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting

and I hate stats! You point out some real puzzlers and I can see a few others. I agree with your opinion regarding Knowshon – so far, he’s been more of a grinder than a slasher. I keep waiting for that game where the lightbulb goes on and he starts finding the seams in the same manner that Buckhalter has thus far this season. I’m thinking these guys need to tweak a few of their algorithms.
Go Broncs!

It's "just" football

by Donkhead on Oct 16, 2009 4:05 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

He's still a few games away from the lightbulb turning on, in my opinion

I don’t expect it to fully come around until next year, to be honest. But make no mistake: with the drive, determination, and skill he’s shown so far as a rookie behind the learning curve, he will be something truly special when he hits his prime.

on his slate: fix the fumbles.
#2: continue to get used to the speed of the game, so his instincts can adjust
#3: listen to Buck every chance he gets.
#4: work out to get BSF

"I certainly don't put myself in [Tom Brady's] class. He's probably the best quarterback to ever play this game. He's got the rings to show it. I didn't beat him. Our team beat the New England Patriots." --- Kyle Orton

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 5:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats

Love ’em and hate ’em. The Broncos have played enough games into the season now to give the stats some weight.

by Endzone on Oct 16, 2009 4:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

PS rec'd and thanks for the added analysis!

by Endzone on Oct 16, 2009 4:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Statistics reveal the truth 33.3% of the time.

Was ain't Is.

by oncobronco on Oct 16, 2009 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, I’ve pimped them long enough.

Pimpin’ ain’t easy, you know.

As for #1 WR’s, they may look less at completed plays, but at how they are covered regardless of if they are thrown too. As you recall, the #1 WR has been open yet missed by the QB. Several times in both the Cowboys and Patriots game…we got a little lucky, but I also attributed that to our QB pressure to that inconsistancy and “luck”

BlueBellies….More like YellowBellies…remember the Dolts are YELLOW AND BLUE. YellaBellied lilly livered girlie men.

Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.

by Tim Lynch on Oct 16, 2009 4:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

yellow-bellied sapsuckin polecats of dubious antecedents and conjectural progeny

With blue-balled pomposity!

by Endzone on Oct 16, 2009 5:00 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

They only consider completed plays

so that’s not it. I think it must be in how they define #1 WR — maybe as “the WR who primarily runs routes in [a particular part of the field]”. If they mean over the middle about 10 yards out, then yes, we do need to get better there. But that seems more like #2 WR territory.

And it’s BlueBelles, as in “girlie men”, as you pointed out. :)

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 5:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

One area that I see as a concern is our offensive 'efficiency."

We’re ranked #6 in the NFL for yards/game, but only #22 for pts/game. We’re have to gain about 133 yards for every 7 points that we score.

We’re working too hard for our points, and I hope that Monday’s game will shown an improvement, especially since the Chargers’ defense is not very good.

Great post, BTW.

Rec’d.

by OrangeKnuckleDragger on Oct 16, 2009 4:58 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

A great deal of that is starting field position

due to our 29th-ranked ST. If I have to go 80+ yards nearly every time I score, my yardage will rack up quickly, while the ordinary vagaries of football will add even more. Besides, we are CLEARLY getting better on offense (minus a few things, such as short yardage), and you’re referencing a cumulative stat. I have confidence we’ll do just fine.

Simply referencing yards and points (i.e., “pure” or “raw” data) can be misleading. For example, is 2 yards gained on 3rd and 1 as valuable as 2 yards gained on 1st and 10? Obviously not. Football Outsiders’ DVOA metric is very useful because it eliminates precisely that disparity, by weighting these and similar circumstances

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 5:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been a supporter of Football Outsiders

It’s an incredible amount of facts to digest, but I generally think they get it right most the time. NE loss in the Super Bowl to NYG when they were undefeated was the biggest anomaly ever in their history. I actually think the weaknesses as described about the Broncos are fair except #1 WR which doesn’t fit as you pointed out.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein

by Ponderosa on Oct 16, 2009 5:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I love FO a lot.

If you haven´t seen their article on how kickers should be judged (based on touchbacks and not FG percentage) it is amazing.

Also, the first article they every did that got a lot of fame on establishing the run to throw vs. establishing the pass to run was just awesome.

Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.

by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 5:44 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

oh, rec´d by the way!

Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.

by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 5:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can explain one of those.

I thought that TEs were supposed to be the weak point of a 5-2 hybrid? Apparently not for us…

TEs aren’t the weakness of a 5-2, but defending the seam is (and that is typicaly the place TEs go to). In Denver’s case, we have brought so much pressure that teams are forced to keep the TEs home to protect the QB. That is how we shut down Whitten in particular.

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

by Steve Nichols on Oct 16, 2009 6:45 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for clarifying!

Any guesses on the #1 WR phenomenon?

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 7:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

I have no idea what that’s about. Frankly, I think we’re excellent at #1 WR defense.

Not a clue.

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

by Steve Nichols on Oct 17, 2009 6:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know about the football outsiders but my eyes tell me:
1. Denver is really struggling in the return game (esp punt return)
2. Denver’s offense is really struggling in short yardage and goal line running

Other than those two glaring weaknesses, there is not one thing that stands out as an equally glaring weakness.

by McGeorge on Oct 16, 2009 7:14 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Definitely

Sometimes this has been attributed to the interior line. Given that we are ranked 3rd overall when running the ball up the middle, I doubt that there would be that massive of a drop-off when the field is shorter.

Actually, I just noticed I’m missing some data. Let me edit it in.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 7:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just updated

And it was a biggie. We are next-to-last running off left tackle (only the pitiful O-line of the Bills is worse). Could it be that Clady, while the solution in the passing game, is the problem in the running game?

I don’t know, just asking.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 7:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Noticed

That Clady is awesome in pass defense but not as good in run blocking. I can’t tell you why, but I think experience in the league will improve his run blocking.

by Endzone on Oct 16, 2009 8:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forgot to Add

Maybe I’m not seeing the same things, but I have seen more weakness running to the strongside than the weakside. Maybe it is that Kuper has been injured, but a lot of short-yardage run plays have been to the strongside.

by Endzone on Oct 16, 2009 8:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey McG

Glad to see you again.

For sure on both your points. What I noticed on tape was that they run the best when they have graham line up outside of Clady and pound the left outside gaps, but on short yardage, of course, they keep going up the gut.

Not that I would do this now, but I always wondered why Champ Bailey didn’t return punts early in his career.

Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.

by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 7:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I liked Travis Shelton and Nate Swift

in the return game. I guess it’s just one of the consequences of a 53-man roster.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 16, 2009 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

great post again SAT

I think Alphonso Smith was supposed to be the answer to all of this. I still think he can be, but it needs to happen soon.

Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.

by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 8:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

My head’s swimming. Just tell me they’re gonna win again, I’ll be happy..

BTW, great post Sharpe, Rec’d and thanks!

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
"Losing stinks" - Josh McDaniels

by azbroncomaniac on Oct 16, 2009 7:55 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

This just in:

Broncos will win Monday night.

by Dwhite on Oct 17, 2009 7:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very nice work Sharpe!

Rec’d

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Oct 16, 2009 9:45 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Fascinating food for thought

MHR, where every meal’s a banquet! : )

Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.

by broncosmontana on Oct 16, 2009 11:54 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I must be hitting a nerve..

Since all three of the quotes you used are mine from various threads, and yet, the stat categories you list back up the view that the defense IS the primary and overwhelming reason for the 5-0 start. You mark those quotes as “fail” and then proceed to point out reason after reason that the quotes are correct.

Interesting…

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and then used against you.

by improv88 on Oct 17, 2009 8:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll be honest, I got a little bit... colorful

So take that for what you will.

Specifically, though, I would like to point out your quote of “product of the defense ALONE” (emphasis mine) and “give [the offense] very, very little credit.” To my mind, “primary and overwhelming reason” is a step back from this. If you were just being colorful as well before, I’ll gladly give you a pass! :)

I must admit, I’m confused how you think that the stats quoted support your previous quotes (even allowing for hyperbole). In the Weaknesses category, I count 5 defensive marks and 2 offensive ones. 4 offensive points (including overall offense) only missed out on being a strength by no more than two ranking slots — and that was only due to a mostly arbitrary operational definition. Passing offense is ranked #7.

To be sure, the overall strength of this team, as things stand this very second, is the defense. Unquestionably. But it seems rather misguided to indicate that the offense has “very, very little” to do with the success of our team. If I had to put it in a sound-byte, I would say that our defense is the main reason for our success, but our offense has done its fair share as well. I would further expound on that and say that our offense is significantly better than league average and is clearly, week to week, improving itself.

But, that’s just my POV. You’re more than entitled to have yours!

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 17, 2009 8:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most of my hyperbole on this site is to get conversations going

That said, out of the 16 stats ranked in the “strengths” category, 10 are defensive, four are offensive line based (although the Outsiders always bring everything back to the OL) one efficiency and the remaining is passing yardage – which was ridiculed last year for prodigious yardage not resulting in points. And the same thing is happening this season.

I also have to disagree with the “significantly better than league average” comment due to the #22 ranking in scoring. McDaniels was brought in, and Cutler was replaced with Orton, in no small part to the offensive woes in the red zone and on third down. Even with a drastic drop in turnovers, a large increase in defensively forced turnovers and supposedly the greatest offensive mind of the current decade, those same two problems exist, if anything have actually gotten worse and in addition now the short yardage game is suffering. In addition, the Bronco offense ranks in the bottom 10 in the NFL in converting 3rd and long as well.

As for the improving point, I’ll agree in a yardage standpoint only. The Broncos highest scoring game of the season is only 27, against possibly the worst team in the NFL, and the first half performances have been underwhelming every week. My soundbyte would read that he defense has carried this team and dominated in the 2nd half of games to give its point-challenged offense enough time to get just enough to not waste phenomenal defensive efforts. As good as this defense has been, it is always easier (and more enjoyable) to play defense from ahead – something the Denver D has not had the opportunity to do against a decent team yet.

It never surprises me when POVs don’t line up – this site would be boring if they did.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and then used against you.

by improv88 on Oct 17, 2009 9:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting perspective, to be sure.

First, to clear up a confusion: “Passing offense” is not simply yards. It’s Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, considered holistically. Yards are part of this, but so are points, third-down conversion, short-yardage conversion, yards gained in specific situations and on specific parts of the field, etc. It’s technically referred to as “Passing offense efficiency”.

I’ve posted elsewhere (in comments) a mea culpa of sorts regarding the yards/points ratio that was a favorite of several (me included) last year and this offseason. Essentially, if I’m consistently driving 80+ yards to score, I am hurting my yards per point ratio but I am improving my time of possession as well as resting my defense. That hardly seems to be something to fix, to me. Therefore, I hope I haven’t given the impression of defending that position, because I don’t really want to.

We both agree that we need to score more points. We both agree we need to leave fewer points on the field. I, however, think that I have a slightly different approach to this issue. I want to ensure that “we have not had to win shootouts yet” is not taken as evidence that “we cannot win shootouts”. In brief, I submit that it is reasonable to suppose that we have not scored a large amount of points because our situation in games has not required that of us. Our playcalling has been geared toward staying competitive and slowly wearing down opponents, as opposed to trying to either catch up or run them out of the building.

I suppose the bottom line is this: should the goal, every possession, be to score? One might think so, but I think there is value to the philosophy that heavily favors scoring, but favors winning the game more.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 17, 2009 1:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

the scoring really isnt an issue and is being really overblown while also ignoring

Our team goals which is to ultimately win the game .

In the 4th quarter against Oak our lats 3 offensive possessions STARTED IN OAKS territory. But we didnt try and pad the score by trying to score tds or even attempt to get in fg our goal on those drives was to run the clock .The only pass Orton threw in those possession was that 17 yard strike to Brandon .

We have missed 3 fg’s and failed to convert a 4th down in fg range

Everyone keeps bringing up the scoring ran without realizing thats its maybe 12 points between 22nd and the top 10. The offense is fine but the special teams play is really in trouble .

One big game throws us into the top ten .

by Hoopforia on Oct 17, 2009 1:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You bring up a good point with the Oakland game

How much of our points/yards ratio is created by games like that one where we are primarily running out the clock? Honestly, are we a significantly better team because we hang 44 points on Oakland instead of 23? I don’t think so. For an example of this, look at the NO/DET game in Week 1. The Saints’ intention was to score points on every drive, and on at least two occasions that come to mind that allowed the Lions to get the ball back and either score or get in a position to score.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 17, 2009 1:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Add three missed field goals and a TD in Oakland, and suddenly the "struggling" offense

…is no longer struggling, statistically.

That being said, the offense is getting better each game. The same can’t be said of last year’s version.

by JeffG on Oct 17, 2009 9:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Most of my hyperbole on this site is to get conversations going"

That’s the kind of MSM attitude that drives me nuts. Relying on hyperbole suggests (to me) a lack of faith in simply having conversations about the team for the sake of conversation or expressing an ones true opinion.

Same thing as “It never surprises me when POVs don’t line up – this site would be boring if they did.”

Since we’re offering opinions, I’ll say one of the reasons I enjoy this site so much is because of the general lack of hyperbole (save for positive and, as this is a fan site and that’s preaching to the choir, it’s reasonable to me) and smack.

Hyperbole and smack are so oversaturated in other sites, on radio and TV that having a relatively “safe haven” for fans here is what I value.

But that’s just me. And I realize it takes all kinds…

by princemilo on Oct 18, 2009 10:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I feel the same way

But I have to stop it myself before I condemn it. For me, it’s more the result of overflowing emotion as opposed to (perhaps?) calculated design, but it still lowers the overall level of discussion regardless of the motive.

Still, it’s frustrating to have people talk past you, not at you. Or, for that matter, exaggerating the issue instead of directly addressing it

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 19, 2009 6:41 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

#1 Receivers

One more thought on that one… perhaps whatever player catches for the most yards that game is considered the #1 for the game? That would translate to our coverage of the most productive receiver is poor (too obvious?).

Still got your Creedence...

by OutOfYourElement on Oct 17, 2009 11:13 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeesh...

I hope that’s not what they mean by that. That would seem to be so ad hoc that it would not be of any use in drawing conclusions.

by Sharpe as a Tack on Oct 17, 2009 1:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, that is NOT how they define it

They subjectively set it to whoever they think the #1 is for the team, then judge success against that receiver. This can be difficult for teams with no true #1, either because they have nobody that is any good (Oak), or multiple folks that can fill that role (NYG), etc.

Typically the “good against” stats on FO are totally scheme driven… Some teams scheme to double the #1 WR heavily, and make the opposing offense go to other folks to beat them. Other teams, including apparently Denver this year, play more zone D or don’t scheme extensively to stop the #1 guy.

My guess is these do not yet include the NE game, as Moss did absolutely NOTHING, and he will count as NE’s #1.

by cjfarls on Oct 17, 2009 2:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see it as a matter of ranks and stats.....

the team is playing good football on both sides of the ball (good enough to be 5-0 in the NFL) ….and from week to week they have done nothing but improve and get better…..a trend I absolutely love….and the rest of the league should fear….not just this year but for years to come ;)

My favorite stats….. two are on the scoreboard, and the other two in in the W/L columns :)

"The question that sometimes drives me hazy, Am I or the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein

by Disturbed70 on Oct 18, 2009 12:46 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs