Mile High Report: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Has Kentucky Improved Since the Non-Conference Season?

Broncos at the BYE - A Look Back Before Looking Ahead

Denver Broncos' Brandon Stokley and Denver Broncos' Mario Haggan (57) celebrate after Stokely's touchdown reception during the fourth quarter of the NFL football game Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 in San Diego. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)

More photos » Denis Poroy - AP

3 months ago: Denver Broncos' Brandon Stokley and Denver Broncos' Mario Haggan (57) celebrate after Stokely's touchdown reception during the fourth quarter of the NFL football game Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 in San Diego. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)

Just because the Broncos are getting a mini-vacation doesn't mean we are at MileHighReport.  We have 6 wins to look back on, and a stretch drive that looks like it will be one to remember.

Following their 34-23 win at San Diego on Monday Night Football, the Denver Broncos (6-0) join five other NFL teams with a bye for Week 7 of the 2009 season. The club resumes play on Nov. 1 when it visits Baltimore to play the Ravens (3-3), who also have a bye this week.

QUICKLY:

The Broncos enter their bye week without a loss for only the third time since the bye week was introduced by the NFL in 1990. Denver, which is one of four teams with a perfect record this year, also was undefeated at its bye week in 1997 and ‘98 (6-0).

Head Coach Josh McDaniels is the fourth rookie coach in the Super Bowl era (since 1966) to begin his coaching career with a 6-0 record. He joins Red Miller (1977) as one of two Broncos coaches with that distinction.


The Broncos have been one of the NFL's best teams in the second half this year. They have outscored opponents 76-10 (+66) while posting a 1,368-605 (+763) advantage in total yardage and a 112:07-72:44 (+39:23) advantage in time of possession during the final two quarters/overtime.

In the game following a bye week, the Broncos are tied for the third-best record (15-5 / .750) in the league since the bye week began in 1990.

Star-divide

OFFENSE:

QB Kyle Orton is 9-1 in his previous 10 starts dating back to last year and ranks third among active quarterbacks in career winning percentage (.692 / 27-12).

Orton's only turnover this year was on a Hail Mary pass attempt vs. New England on Oct. 11. He leads the NFL in fourth-quarter passer rating (142.1), touchdown-to-interception ratio (9-to-1) and lowest interception percentage (0.5 / 1-in-194).

Led by RBs Correll Buckhalter and Knowshon Moreno, along with their offensive line, the Broncos are seventh in the league in rushing yards per game (132.7 ypg.). The Broncos lead the league in lowest percentage of rushes
going for negative yardage (4.4% / 8-of-181 / excludes kneeldowns).

DEFENSE:

 

* - Coached by long-time NFL defensive coordinator Mike Nolan, the Broncos rank first in the NFL in scoring defense (11.0), second in yards per game allowed (262.5 ypg.) and second in yards per play allowed (4.4).

* - Denver has not allowed a third-down conversion in the second half of its last four games for the longest such streak in the NFL since at least 1992. For the year, opponents are converting just 2-of-35 (5.7%) third downs in
the second half.

* - OLB/DE Elvis Dumervil leads the NFL with 10 sacks. He is the second-fastest player (6 games) to reach 10 sacks since they became an official statistic in 1982 (fastest since Michael Strahan in 2001, 6 gms.).

SPECIAL TEAMS:

* - WR Eddie Royal became only the 11th player in NFL history to score a touchdown on a kickoff (93 yds.) and a punt return (71 yds.) in the same game at San Diego last week. He was named AFC Special Teams Player of the Week following the contest.

* - With two return touchdowns this year, Special Teams Coordinator Mike Priefer has now coached units that have accounted for nine special-teams touchdowns in his eight years in the NFL.

**Compliments of the Denver Broncos P.R. Staff

5 recs  |  Comment 102 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Mile High Report

Comments

Display:

I hate BYE weeks...I crave more....need more...

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

The guy formerly known as ZAPPA

by Tim Lynch on Oct 22, 2009 10:02 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm going to Drink

until The Baltimore game so I can hopefully forget this awful 2 weeks with no football

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison

"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble

by DenBronx on Oct 22, 2009 10:07 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's especially hard

since the last game was on MNF. I know that’s a good thing for all of you out there that don’t get to see many of the Broncos games, but (as I’ve said before) I truly believe that God intended for the Broncos to playon Sunday at 2:00 MDT. That’s why Church is in the morning, right? And crikey, the next game will be at 11:00 MDT! (But that’s the next best thing to 2:00.)

IT is, and it's impossible for IT not to be.
Parmenides (5th Century B. C. Greek)

by bradley on Oct 22, 2009 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

to shorten the wait

for a true fan – that’s why they made us play as late as possible (MNF) pre-bye and as early as possible post-bye. One day and 3 hours less between football fix doses

by si_ice on Oct 22, 2009 12:08 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

On the other hand...

Guarantee of no Broncos loss, guarantee of at least one divisional rival will not win (SD vs. KC), chance of a 2nd divisional rival losing AND CHI plays at CIN, so chance of our draft pick getting better.

Look on the bright side, buddy!

by Timimus on Oct 22, 2009 3:00 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Lol

I wonder if we offered to trade Seattle straight up for our pick back if they wouldn’t take it today.

How do you keep the Broncos Humble?
"Just show them the film. Show them the film." - Josh McDaniels

by Kfustud on Oct 22, 2009 4:11 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good Stuff

It is always fun to take a look back at the first 6 weeks when you’re team is 6-0. They have done some amazing things so far this season, and I can’t see any reason why they can’t continue. 6 wins doesn’t get you anything in the NFL, and Coach McDaniels knows this. I have some lofty hopes for the rest of the season.

"It's okay to eat fish, 'cause they don't have any feelings" - Kurt Kobain

by JChase8410 on Oct 22, 2009 10:06 AM MDT via mobile reply actions   0 recs

Thank God for DVR

Even though no Broncos football this week I can go back and watch the last 6 games again. Although I might skip the faders game. I shouldn’t have to subject myself to Jamarcus Russell again. But ah what the heck!

"No more my bad just make the play"-McJedi

by RockyMountainThunder on Oct 22, 2009 10:10 AM MDT reply actions   1 recs

Some mildly interesting info

and some completely meaningless. What would you think of a stat telling you that The Broncos is the only team in the NFL in this and the previous century who hasn’t allowed a score in the 8th minute of the second quarter? Not much I bet. While stats can cast a light on certain aspects, they are mostly of no value at all. It is my belief the focus on stats originated with baseball which is such a boring and slow moving “sport” that the spectators needed something to occupy their minds with in-between the long waits for actual action.

The most overrated of all stats is time of possession. Yes, holding on to the ball is better than three and out which then equates with longer possession being preferable but even better is a 20 second Eddie Royal punt-return for a touchdown. It is often stated that as long as you hold on to the ball the opponents are not scoring. While that is entirely correct, it is equally true that as long as you are holding on to the ball, you are not scoring.

It is also often stated that if you can keep your defense off the field they won’t get tired. That makes sense but even so, you have never heard of a team that chose not to score in order to keep their defense fresh. Yes I know, sometimes when you are ahead you would rather run out the clock than risk a turnover but that is only because that is easier to do than is scoring. So while there are exceptions to everything such as the end of the game example, it still holds true that every team would like to score as soon as possible on every possession.

A fan of a team that typically scores in short order could proudly point to the stats saying: "Yes, we are really good. Just look at how short our time of possession is."

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 10:35 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Completely disagree

about Time of Possession….

-TSG

SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport

Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com
or
Call Me! (303)731-5605

Follow MHR on Twitter!
Follow MHR on Facebook!

by John Bena on Oct 22, 2009 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're overthinking TOP

I invite you to read the Dude’s excellent season-long series: Stats That Don’t Lie

P.S. Guru beat me to it. :)

by BroncosBassist on Oct 22, 2009 10:58 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just did (skim thru it) BroncoBassist

One stat you may consider standing out is

The team that won the time of possession battle won 13 of the 14 games played (93%).

It is my contention, however, that the teams that won didn’t win because of time of possession. Rather the time of possession stats tend to be the result of winning.

PS
Bena, just stating you disagree doesn’t earn you a personal post response.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Causality vs. correlation.

Average Raider Fan's IQ = 89
Bill Williamson's IQ = 75
Find yours by clicking here.

by kwool79 on Oct 22, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

meh........chicken or egg argument....

one thing is clear and proven…..if you dont have the ball you are trying to get the ball….its a lot less tireing to have the ball than trying to get the ball……the longer you hold the ball the more tired the other team is going to get…..applies to most sports besides baseball, which is the ultimate in “fair play” where each team is given 18 outs unless of course it goes extra innings.

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

by Disturbed70 on Oct 22, 2009 1:22 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

uhhhhhhhhh heheheheheh heh heh heh hehe hehehhehe hehehe

forgot my prozac again heheheh

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

by Disturbed70 on Oct 23, 2009 9:20 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it came from

the 10 run rule….In little league that is about we all we ever had to play was 18 outs

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

by Disturbed70 on Oct 23, 2009 9:26 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Speaking from the perspective of a defensive coordinator...

…I have to agree with John for several reasons.

1) Defenses wear out faster than offenses. There are many reasons for this, but the prime one is that the offense goes into each play knowing what they will do, but the defense has the added physical stress of reacting. This takes a high toll on the defense. The offense controls the tempo. Thus, TOP dictates who is getting their defense grinded down.

2) Fans LOVE quick scores (scoring on a big play). Fine. Coaches don’t, and here’s why. As long as MY team has the ball, I’m doing several things. I’m wearing down the opposing defense (which worsens as the game goes on). I’m also increasing the odds of scoring (offenses score more than defenses).

3) The idea that a “20 second score” is better than a 5 or 6 minute drive is a commonly cited one. But there are fallacies in that thinking. For one, the vast majority of scores are not “quick strikes” on big plays. They are accomplished in drives down the field. Also, If the point were true (pro quick strike), we’d have more games won by teams with less TOP.

4) The cart before the horse argument – I disagree here too (and agree with John). If coaches (who are the guys paid to win) didn’t believe in TOP, they wouldn’t try to attain it.

And the biggest reason….

5) The biggest reason a teams loses TOP ISN’T because of scoring, it because of the lack of first downs. A team with poor TOP isn’t just failing to score, they are failing to get first downs to keep the offense on the field.

Formerly known as HoosierTeacher or just HT.

"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 22, 2009 2:02 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

3) The idea that a "20 second score" is better than a 5 or 6 minute drive is a commonly cited one. But there are fallacies in that thinking. For one, the vast majority of scores are not "quick strikes" on big plays. They are accomplished in drives down the field. Also, If the point were true (pro quick strike), we’d have more games won by teams with less TOP.

This is one reason why I’m not a big fan of relying on a Hester, Cribbs, or Royal to score points. While I loved and appreciated Eddie’s runbacks this weekend, my enthusiasm was tempered with the realization that our D had to go back on the field.

A corollary to item 4 might be that an offense can’t get in rhythm and get cooking if they’re not on the field. The more TOP you have, the more comfortable most offenses tend to be. It takes a special QB and talent around him to overcome a game of benchsitting and play well.

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 22, 2009 2:07 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

corollary to item 3, i meant.

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 22, 2009 2:08 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

You've got it.

Just before the game, I wrote that I don’t care if we return any kicks or punts for TDs. Not that that is a bad thing; I am just more focused on not giving up the ball on a returns fumble.

But as a defense guy, I was thinking “Crap! My guys have to go back on the field with no rest. This could go bad”. Obviously though, if the returner can get a TD (or even a lot of yards), you TAKE IT! lol

Formerly known as HoosierTeacher or just HT.

"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 22, 2009 2:10 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol No doubt

And I like to think of the D as being like a muscle that is fully flexed for every play. If you clench your fist for a few seconds, you can repeat that again a few seconds later. If you clench for a few minutes, then try again a few seconds later, it’s much different. (Okay, lame metaphor but it’s close to what I mean. lol)

Every part of the D is tested for the first half of every play, until it is identified as a run or pass, weak or strong, which skill player has the ball, to say nothing of misdirection and play action. To my non-professional mind, this seems a little harder than playing offense, where you know in the huddle what you are going to be doing and where you are going to be trying to do it.

The fatigue of reaction, which is physical and active (not just mental), is a distinct disadvantage of playing defense, which is why I couldn’t be more thrilled that Coaches McDaniels and Nolan et al are playing an attacking style, forcing offenses to react to us as much or more as we must react to them.

Do I have that right, teach?

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 22, 2009 2:22 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hopefully

We will work on this in practice this week.

“Eddie we want you to return 1 or 2 for a TD each week but maybe spread it out. 1 in the first half maybe 1 in the third quarter.”

How do you keep the Broncos Humble?
"Just show them the film. Show them the film." - Josh McDaniels

by Kfustud on Oct 22, 2009 4:13 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

Nice! If beggars can’t be choosers, be a chooser! ; )

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 22, 2009 6:22 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

The best way to beat Phillip Rivers is to keep him off the damn field. An offense that can sustain eight, nine play drives for five minutes is a good thing, if they can score consistently. And if your defense is getting off the field on third down or creating turnovers, you will win TOP hands down.

The end result last week was this – the best way to beat Philip Rivers (or any QB and his offense, really) is to keep them off the damn field. And several Broncos drives Monday were a thing of beauty.

And to think, they’re going to get BETTER.

Don't argue with fools. It's how they reproduce.

by TheMastermind on Oct 22, 2009 3:31 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I repeated myself...

But I’m at work. I mean…I’m busy. I would never blog at work.

Don't argue with fools. It's how they reproduce.

by TheMastermind on Oct 22, 2009 3:32 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

LMAO

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

by Disturbed70 on Oct 22, 2009 3:48 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Second

Best way to beat a guy like Rivers is to drive him into the ground so many times that he doesn’t know which way is up.

How do you keep the Broncos Humble?
"Just show them the film. Show them the film." - Josh McDaniels

by Kfustud on Oct 22, 2009 4:14 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

The man was one hit away from lookin out his earhole Monday night

Nice to see. Nice to see. ^^

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 22, 2009 6:24 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was Starting

To feel sorry for the guy. At some point it just becomes a joke. Reminded me of Brady in the Superbowl. Constantly getting hit and the team wasn’t doing a thing to adjust for it.

How do you keep the Broncos Humble?
"Just show them the film. Show them the film." - Josh McDaniels

by Kfustud on Oct 23, 2009 8:25 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hear what you're saying...

But I’m a LONG way from feeling sorry for that guy. Maybe if he wasn’t such a yapper when they were winning.

Phyllis? Phyllis? Are you there? I can't hear you anymore.

by pubkeeper on Oct 23, 2009 9:51 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

He Would

He would be a lot easier to like if he didn’t constantly run his mouth.

How do you keep the Broncos Humble?
"Just show them the film. Show them the film." - Josh McDaniels

by Kfustud on Oct 23, 2009 9:58 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

T O P

How could it not be a vital stat? My offense was on the field longer than yours. Unless we are dealing with the Cyborg Manning, it has to be a positive.

I fully expect Peyton on Heroes:

“So what is your power Peyton?”
“I can compress 30 minutes of work into 15”

by DickVMI on Oct 22, 2009 1:05 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

You make a good point.

Time of Possession is not a specific statistic. It doesn’t mean that you grind it out and take as long to score as possible. Though that would increase your TOP.

But there are two sides to the coin. Every team would like to score as quickly as possible. 7 points now is better than taking off a bunch of time. All of this is true. However…. every team would like to force the other team to go 3 and out. TOP also reflects your team’s ability to get the opponent off the field. Most of the time, this means you forced a punt or FG…. although occasionally, it means your opponent got a quick TD.

Over the course of time, teams with a better TOP win more games. It doesn’t matter if it’s causal or correlation. Either way, it is useful to look at.

If it’s causal, then TOP advantage shows that your team has the ability to control the clock, making them more likely to win. If it’s correlation, then TOP advantage is proof that your team is consistently playing winning football.

Either way, the stat makes me happy.

by SkinnyPB on Oct 22, 2009 12:47 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point SkinnyPB

Greater time of possession does indeed (usually) reflect positively on the defense.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 12:54 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

And (usually) offense

Reading below, I was going to jump in on this; but I see that SkinnyPB has really said what was on my mind, and probably better than I would have. There is some degree of causality from TOP to winning, but it really would be impossible to quantify.

I say TOP is a positive indicator for offense, because sustained drives for scores have very positive effects for that team in addition to the score – a rested defense, emotion (“momentum”), etc. Where this gets skewed, of course, is when TOP is more decoupled from the scoring (e.g. 2001 Rams, Colts with Manning, etc.)

by MakeCents on Oct 22, 2009 1:05 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I definitely agree.

The third down conversions and TOP go hand in hand. If your offense can’t convert a lot of third downs, it leads to more punts and less time of possession. At the same time, if you have an efficient offense that converts lots of third downs to sustain drives, the TOP would be higher.

So there is a lot involved in TOP. It isn’t specific enough to tell you what you have done with that amount of time, but it is definitely beneficial for the team to have more time with the ball to run more plays and have more chances to score.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by kentuckybronco on Oct 22, 2009 1:22 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rivers looked frustrated

QBs get into grooves, and long drives by an offense can hurt the other team’s offense not only because it keeps them off the field, but because when they get back on the field they are often tight or overanxious.

Conversely, the Broncos quick scores on returns clearly affected the ability of its offense to find a rhythm.

by JeffG on Oct 22, 2009 7:40 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

well ya but!

u can make exceptions to any stat. like saying oh turnover ratio isnt important becuz if u turned it over 4 times and them once but u returned one its okay. No. Time of Possesion is vital cuz it builds momentum and rests ur defense and….need i go on?

by Colby on Oct 22, 2009 1:46 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, that makes sense

Elvis Dumervil leads the NFL with 10 sacks. He is the second-fastest player (6 games) to reach 10 sacks since they became an official statistic in 1982 (fastest since Michael Strahan in 2001, 6 gms.).

Sure. Fast players are the ones who will get the sacks. :o)

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 10:50 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

lol, warmick! What does impress me about that

is that he’s done so faster than the original LT. Lawrence Taylor was an almost unbelievable physical specimen, but many folks didn’t realize what a brilliant football mind he had. Parcells spoke about this several times. To reach that goal faster than he did is astounding.

Moreno/Buckhalter in '09

by Emmett Smith on Oct 22, 2009 5:08 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

LaDanian Tomlinson certainly was one hell of a player

and perhaps he still is but it always bothered me that they call him LT. There is only one king in music, there is only one duke in movies and there is only one LT in football as far as I am concerned, and that is not Tomlinson.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 7:00 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

This doesn't really apply, but...

Would anyone else like to see McD run the “wildhorse” with Moreno on third and short situations? Third and short seems to be the one glaring weakness of this offense. It has been mentioned by the media and McD and Orton. They said they were going to make changes to get better, but it has not appeared that they have done anything differently. I’d like to see how the wildhorse would work in those situations. It was good for at least 4 or 5 yards a pop when we ran it. I like that it instantly gets the ball to the RB so that he can pick up the hole quicker and just hammer it. No wasted time with the handoff. Especially since it seems the defense is constantly getting great penetration on these situations. The only problem with running the wildhorse is that we have yet to show that Moreno can pass out of it and keep defenses honest. So if they were crowding the box before, they will especially load it up for the Wildhorse. But if we don’t do something to fix our troubles, we could come to really regret it in a close game. Its frustrating that we can drive the ball right down the field consistently, but whenever we get into short yardage situations, it’s like we hit a wall. I’d even consider running the QB sneak more. (It picked up 4 yards on Monday). Thoughts?

by ZTC_87 on Oct 22, 2009 11:05 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

if Moreno could change the location of the running play in response to the defense, something Orton does not seem to be doing very well himself on short yardage for some reason.

by phondonkey on Oct 22, 2009 1:02 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have to disagree

I have to disagree, to a point, with warmick’s first post. If the Broncos have a drive that takes 5 minutes off the clock and they score points how is that bad? To say that when you are taking minutes off of the clock you are not scoring – doesn’t make sense to me. Time of position means a lot in a football game. There is such a thing as scoring too fast. If a team is behind in points during a game then, yea, a couple quick scores is good as long as you hold the other team to no additional points. Think about this stat – the Broncos have scored 76 points in the second half of games while their opponents have scored 10 points. The Broncos have the time of position advantage by almost twice as much as their opponents in the second half. To me that means time of position means a lot and is very important.

by L M Alzado #77 on Oct 22, 2009 11:11 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

L M Alzado #77

In football, teams alternate having possession of the ball. There are only two possibilities: Either each team holds possession an equal number of times or one team holds possession ONE more time than the other. Thats it! It is not how long you hold on to the ball that matters but what you do with it when you have it

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 11:20 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

warmick,

I kind of get what you are attempting to say. However, a team could totally have more possesions in a game than another and not have the ball longer or any points for that matter. Having 20 3 and outs versus 5 drives for scores will win everytime. I would agree that TOP alone doesn’t guarantee winning. But, TOP and succesfull 3rd down conversions most likely will. Lebowski’s stats that matter do show that.

by bchiper on Oct 22, 2009 11:32 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

bchiper, I am not "attempting" to say anything.

I am actually saying exactly what I mean.
No, a team cannot have “totally more possessions.” It is one more or the same, period. Yes, those with the longer time of possession usually turn out to be the winners. Another thing I have observed: Those team with the players displaying the most smiles during and after the game tend to win. I don’t suppose you would suggest that smiling the most will help you secure a victory?

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 11:41 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

So we've established you are never wrong,

and can’t hold a reasonable discussion. Good day and good ridance.

by bchiper on Oct 22, 2009 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know what you are getting so upset about

Your “So we’ve established you are never wrong,” makes no sense. I hope I come across as thinking I am right because that is indeed what I think. I also thought everybody engaging in discussion would be of that mindset. If you are presenting arguments you think are wrong, then you are being disingenious and have no business participating in discussions. As for being unable to “hold a reasonable discussion,” between the two of us, I am the one who has adhered strictly to the subject at hand.

Since you were having difficulty understanding my argument I kindly provided you with a very easy to understand analogy demonstrating that you have to be careful correlating cause and effect. I didn’t expect you to express gratitude for my indulgence but I certainly don’t believe I have deserved to be castigated for an erroneously perceived affront.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

If no you provide no room for alternative opinions

it is not a discussion.

And actually if you read the entire post I actually agreed with your point on TOP and added that when used with additional stats might reflect success more than one by itself.

Assuming I don’t understand is about as arogant as one can get. If you want to be condescending in your remarks to others then don’t expect others to engage in discussions with you.

by bchiper on Oct 22, 2009 3:28 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

warmick is over from the DP boards

He needs to find the tone of this place, I think.

by JeffG on Oct 22, 2009 7:42 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous

So there are no on-side kicks, or turn overs on special teams? The number of possessions, in an ideal smash mouth game of football played in 1938 would almost certainly have the same (or one more) possessions for each team, but that isn’t a given. Indeed, in most games the number of possessions is the same (or within one), but to state such a thing as absolute fact, with no room for discussion adds little to the debate.
And yes, smiling (attitude) does help (to some small degree) in securing a victory.

Go Broncos!

by Royal With Cheese on Oct 22, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

You are half right

You are indeed sorry :) but let me explain: If you secure the ball via an on-side kick, then there is no change of possession. The other team doesn’t get the ball until they get it. At that point they will have had the ball one time each. The equal number or one more only is most definitely an absolute fact. As for your attitude comment. While not wrong, how does that detract from the points I have been making?

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 12:46 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fair point. OT could make it 2 more possessions, but now we're arguing semantics and splitting hairs.

I don’t suppose you would suggest that smiling the most will help you secure a victory?

Oh, but I would suppose and do detract.
All in fun, my friend. The cause/effect relationship between TOP and victory is hardly proven, nor disproven. It is a good debate to have, I just never like to see statements such as “absolute fact” as no facts are absolute.

Everything is relative.
Go Broncos!

By the way,

Well, that makes sense
    Elvis Dumervil leads the NFL with 10 sacks. He is the second-fastest player (6 games) to reach 10 sacks since they became an official statistic in 1982 (fastest since Michael Strahan in 2001, 6 gms.).
Sure. Fast players are the ones who will get the sacks. :o)

That was funny!

by Royal With Cheese on Oct 22, 2009 12:57 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually OT doesn't change anything

Whether or not the first team in OT is the same that had possession at the end of regulation is of no consequence. Either there is a change of possession or there isn’t. The ONE max difference still applies.

That Disturbed70 goes for fumbles and everything else as well unless, of course, you redefine what is means to have the bold in hand.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 1:14 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

If a team starts the game with the ball

and end regulation with possession, that’s one more.
Wins the OT coin toss and scores, that’s two.

But again, splitting hairs at this point.

by Royal With Cheese on Oct 22, 2009 1:23 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

You got me

Sort of. If the team with one more possession after regulation is the only team to have possession in overtime, then you could argue they have had two more possessions. On the other hand, you could argue it turned out to be the same possession spanning the end of the game but this is indeed splitting hair.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 2:08 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think I understand where you're coming from,

but for the sake of argument (or discussion), it’s theoretically possible for a team to onside kick and recover to start the game. This same team may take it down the field and score and then, onside kick and score again, etc. If a score ends a “possession”, then it would be possible for one team to have multiple possessions while the other has none. All unlikely, of course, but it’s just a discussion.
Go Broncs!

It's "just" football

by Donkhead on Oct 22, 2009 2:51 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is getting kind of silly but

just for the fun of it:
If scoring (rather than turning the ball over) defines end of possession, then it would follow that scoring a touchdown followed by an extra point is actually two possessions.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 3:00 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

And in that spirit

If you get a safety, does that constitute a possession?

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 3:03 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mean this in any negative way, but...

maybe it is easier to look at it as drives instead of possession. It is possible for a team to have more than one extra drive in a game, if not more possessions. I think this is where the fuzziness is coming into play.

In this sense, drives and possession is not synonymous, but I think that is what is being assumed. Am I correct?

by adamriggs on Oct 22, 2009 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

aren't their two halves to a game?

If so, I’d say your “absolute fact” is not so absolute.

by JeffG on Oct 22, 2009 7:45 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Come on JeffG

I consider you one of the smartest guys on this site. Think it out. That there are two halfs makes absolutely NO difference. Either they were even after the first half or they will be by the time the second half starts.

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 8:51 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

hmmmmmm

turnovers skew your possesion theory. Unless you count fumbles on kick offs and punt returns a “possession”. I consider possession of the football as running at least one play on offense after the special teams “successful” reception of possession.

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

by Disturbed70 on Oct 22, 2009 1:07 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't think that's accurate

Team A throws an INT and while player from team B is returning said INT, he fumbles and team A recovers. The result is 1st down, Team A regardless of field position because there has been a change of possession (2, actually). Same goes for fumbled ST plays.

I am not sure how onside kicks are recorded, but even if that is not recorded as a change of possession, there are rarely more than 1 in a game.

So, here’s a scenario:
Team A kicks off to start the game, Team B has possession at the end of the half. (Even possessions)

Team B receives the ball to start the second half and finishes with game with possession. (Team B is +1 in number of possessions)

Throw in a successful onside kick by Team B (if they are indeed NOT recorded as a change of possession) and you get a +2 for Team B.

Then if there’s OT and Team B wins the toss and then the game you’d get Team B with 3 more possessions than Team A.

Richard Seymour is a girl.

by pubkeeper on Oct 22, 2009 1:19 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

With a nod to RwC about the semantics

The turnovers don’t skew it if you go with the premise that one team always has possession. If you don’t have possession by taking a kickoff (and fumbling it), then that means I never lost possession. I think this comports with warmick’s definition.

Your fumbled kickoff is a good example point for an alternate definition, whereas I might say that holding the ball with a distinct opportunity to score is a “possession”. Therefore, if you receive a kickoff, that’s a possession. If I end regulation with the ball, then get it first in OT – that’s two possession, because it was two distinct scoring opportunities.

Don’t know that this adds much to the discussion, but I’m filling a crack at work, and it’s what I could contribute.

by MakeCents on Oct 22, 2009 1:21 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Posession is continuos

Through a TD and extra pt and KO up to the instant that the returner establishes control with 2 ft in bound or the touchback occurs.

If a dominant high school team (or someone playing the raiders) were to successfully on-side kick all game long, that would just mean they never relinquished posession!

The raiders would have had posession once to kick off the first or second half, but that would just mean grouchy ’ol warmac is right: even number of posessions, but one lasting 59:56, the other 4 seconds hangtime.

I think you could argue that TOP in such a scenario is a pretty revealing stat, but…

"Aggression, discipline, accountability, effort" Brian Dawkins 9/29/2009
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing." Helen Keller
"He will always be a slave who does not know how to live upon a little" Horace

by PositivIntegral on Oct 22, 2009 9:38 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

In how many games does ONE possession determine the outcome? Lots!

Take the end of the Cowboys game, where Brandon Marshall scored the long TD. Quick strike… Good thing, right?

Not really. Though it turned out okay with a great goal line stand by the defense, the outcome could very easily have been different.

Does that mean Brandon should have taken a knee where he caught the ball? Of course not. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if he absolutely knew he was going to score one way or another, McDaniels would have chosen a clock-eating drive capped by a field goal as time expired.

In the fourth quarter, that ONE final possession, and the length of it frequently determines the outcome of the game.

So I would say that time of TOP for its own sake is vitally important at the end of games, though most of the time it’s just a reliable metric for overall offensive and defensive efficacy.

by Velveeta on Oct 22, 2009 1:36 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not exactly Warmick.

My team can have more possessions than the other team. I’ll just give you one example…

My team punts the ball, your guy touches the ball, but never gets possession. My guy recovers our own punt. 2 possessions in a row.

Here’s another. If the team ending the first half with possession gets to return the kick at the start of the second half, they ALSO get 2 possessions in row.

There are several examples. But I understand what you’re saying.

Formerly known as HoosierTeacher or just HT.

"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 22, 2009 2:07 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bye is Good Preparation for the Broncos and their fans

For the 2 week break betwen the AFC Championship and the Super Bowl

by OrangeCrush4082 on Oct 22, 2009 11:23 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Amen Bro!!!!!!!!!

Our new DOOMesday Defense!!!! YOU LIKE??????????????

by Broncofan on Oct 22, 2009 7:38 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Third that

The one situation McD can’t synthesize has fallen in our laps.

"Aggression, discipline, accountability, effort" Brian Dawkins 9/29/2009
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing." Helen Keller
"He will always be a slave who does not know how to live upon a little" Horace

by PositivIntegral on Oct 22, 2009 9:42 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Third Downs

Let me start off with saying that the ‘Wildhorse’ might work on third down. On the other hand, maybe not. A lot of times when you have 3rd and a couple the defense will stack the box and that could make it tough. With New England it worked for a little while but when they made adjustments it seems like they quite using it because it wasn’t as effective. I would like them to try the ‘wildhorse’ on third down. It might take them by surprise. Did you see on Monday Night when Moreno went over the top on third down? I don’t know that I have seen that on third down before. Goal line yes, but on third down I don’t know.

by L M Alzado #77 on Oct 22, 2009 11:28 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

My contention with short yardage

It seems that when Denver runs a short yardage play it is slow developing and our smallish guards,namely Ben Hamilton and sometimes even Clady get blown up.Maybe Hochstein should replace Hamilton at Left Guard and place Graham,an excellent blocking tight end at FB or even Graham and Hillis in a full house backfield formation with Moreno as the halfback?

The other option that I have been screaming for is a hurry up QB sneak.Orton is big enough to get the lean for the first down.If not why not think completely out of the box and line up Orton out wide and line up Marshall under center?We all know how Marshall can run after the catch and he would probably have to take some snaps under center,but have Denver run the play a few times in short yardage and part of the time have him hand it off to Moreno on some downs and run the keeper on other downs to keep the defense guessing.

As for Moreno going over the top at midfield I did like it at the time but in retrospect it is a risky play.Whereas a fumble in the end zone in nonconsequential in the end zone as long as the ball breaks the plane,at midfield it can be devastating expecially on fourth down where NFL rules state that the only player who can recover a fumble on 4th down is the player who fumbles it(we can thank the Raiders and the Holy Roller against the Chargers back in 78 I believe for this rule)

by OrangeCrush4082 on Oct 22, 2009 11:41 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

OC

I know totally what you are saying and I agree that it is slow developing. I just wonder about other factors sometimes. Like Ortons finger was hurt the first four games and I wonder if that was a factor. Was it the overtime period when they were trying to get a little closer that they did a QB sneek? It did work real well. As McDaniels say’s they have a lot to work on and they are far from perfect. I expected Denver to be good this season and frankly they have exceeded my expectations. I think – I hope – this will be worked on. Players are still learning the system. It is maddening to me how third downs have gone but I think it will improve.

by L M Alzado #77 on Oct 22, 2009 11:57 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know this was last year, but

at KC, Marshall tried running out of the backfield and got hit by a big lineman and fumbled the ball. It’s okay for the Beast to go after little DBs, but when he went against the big D-Linemen, it didn’t work out so well.

"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game

by DesertBroncoFan on Oct 22, 2009 9:32 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

What Coach says he's looking at during the bye...

  “You take a look at what we’ve done, some of the tendencies we’ve created ourselves that we want to change and adjust going forward,” McDaniels said. “I think it’s important that you try to protect yourself from becoming predictable and that’s part of the process this week. Hopefully we’re not too predictable this week, but we’re going to try to change the things we need to change, and fix the things that we need to be fixed.”

  When asked about the great second half performances he answered, “One of our goals in the bye week is to start faster,” McDaniels said. “I’d much rather play like that in the first half and feel better at halftime. We are in a competitive league and playing against competitive teams. But if we could start faster, that would help some.”

Was ain't Is.

by oncobronco on Oct 22, 2009 11:44 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Football Gods

Why is everything stacked against the Broncos. First everyone doubted the team. Then they get rewarded with one of the toughest schedules in the league. Now we play the next two games against teams coming off their byes to prepare for Denver. Can we get anything to go in our favor? Good grief….

by DaLostBoy4 on Oct 22, 2009 11:47 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

I think that point is being lost here...

One of the main advantages of a Bye is having multiple weeks to prepare for an opponent while they can only devote half that time to you. I’m so upset about the Ravens coming off a tough loss and getting two weeks to prepare for us, while our advantage is completely nullified. Imagine if we got the Raiders after a bye and they only had a week to prepare for us… We’d literally beat them 72-0.

I’m very concerned about the Baltimore game, but if I’ve learned anything about this team, you don’t discount them in the second half (even if it’s the second half of the season).

by legendarywalton on Oct 22, 2009 12:16 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which makes the SD win so sweet

They were coming off of a bye week AND playing at home.

And we still zapped em.

by NYCBronx on Oct 22, 2009 12:34 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correction...

I just remembered that SD came off a bye too! So that makes it THREE opponents in a row that the Broncos play a team coming off their bye…Goodness gracious let the heavens rain!!! I’m still confident that the Broncos will win them all!

by DaLostBoy4 on Oct 22, 2009 1:06 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

To whom

Much is given, much shall be demanded

last year we needed a ‘break’ or an advantage out of the blue

this year

we

Take It

"Aggression, discipline, accountability, effort" Brian Dawkins 9/29/2009
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing." Helen Keller
"He will always be a slave who does not know how to live upon a little" Horace

by PositivIntegral on Oct 22, 2009 9:48 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Off topic

Darrell Reid on First Take right now.

2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant

by weazel on Oct 22, 2009 11:47 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Reid on First Take

Pretty simple interview.

Asked about one reason they are 6-0: McDaniels and the fact that he brings a winning attitude. Said they make those throwbacks look good. Everyone asking for those socks.

On why he chose Denver: He was told he would determine his role and he would play defense and speciall teams. That was perfect for him because he said he is a versitile player.

2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant

by weazel on Oct 22, 2009 11:52 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Football gods

The score at the end of the game is in our favor. I am really glad that the Broncos have a hard schedule and everything seems to be stacked against them. I hope it makes them tougher and better prepared mentally. Once they get into the playoffs things will get even tougher so they will have to be tougher.

by L M Alzado #77 on Oct 22, 2009 12:08 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Silver lining in the tough schedule

I agree with Alzado, the tough schedule could pay dividends come playoff time. We’ll have a battle tested team that will have played most of the best teams in the league by the time the playoffs come around thus providing great preparation.

by BroncosRock! on Oct 22, 2009 12:26 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

It's all good

I think about when Doom is interviewed and he is asked what it is like to go against Clady during practice. Besides saying that Clady is a beast, Doom always says that it makes him better. It makes him stay on top of his game. He has to try harder. I look at it the same way while we are playing these tough games. This can only make us better.

by L M Alzado #77 on Oct 22, 2009 12:41 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

SD, Balt, and Pitt are all coming off of byes prior to Denver

Just thought this was interesting. Each of these opponents has two weeks to game plan for the Broncos.

by CoastalBronco on Oct 22, 2009 1:00 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Two weeks of game planning can be a double edged sword.

How do you spend two weeks for a team whose defining characteristic is its uniqueness from week to week?

I think the only thing that extra planning might help on would be one-on-one matchups.

by Velveeta on Oct 22, 2009 2:06 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well we have a bye week before Baltimore

so we’ll have plenty of time as well. SD had a bye before we beat them in on national television so that didn’t do much good for them. However, they aren’t that good either.

2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant

by weazel on Oct 22, 2009 2:42 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't mean to beat a dead horse......

   Woops. Did I just say that? Anyhow, about this Time of Possession argument. How many times do we see the Lions, Rams, Chiefs, etc… score long bombs (i.e. quick scores) each week on ESPN. Not very many in my opinion. Also, how many 99 yard quick scores do we see? Not very many in my opinion. Not that they don’t occur. Just that they are few and far between especially for the aforementioned teams. Most “Big” scores are in the 60 to 30 yard range (I would say). In saying that, I would hypothesize that the more opportunities or plays, the more chances you have of scoring a quick play. The “good” teams that have long drives and many opportunities will eventually hit the big one. The “bad” teams do not have as many opportunities. Therefore they don’t score as many chances to score “quickly”. IMHO!! Take it for what it’s worth. Thanks for your time.

by Broncos or Bust on Oct 22, 2009 7:09 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Let me add one thing to help this make sense.

  The Broncos scored two quick touchdowns against S.D. and Denver still won the time of possession. They were better at holding (moving) the ball and forcing more opportunities.

by Broncos or Bust on Oct 22, 2009 7:12 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

TOP has more to say about

Your defense than your offense

say the average balanced 50yd posession ending in a punt (with a score or 4 each game) lasts 5 minutes

but your D forces 1 minute 3-and outs all game: TOP will be on the order of 50 min to 10 and have nothing to do with how quick or slow you score.

This sounds silly but is sensible as a thought expiriment: take a phenomenon to it’s conclusion and see if something is revealed.

Bottom line: we can score quick AND slow as the occasion demands, more or less.

And then we can trust Doom and the Mojo-mashers to give it back.

We should never apologize for, or be unhappy about some points to work with; that just makes the D’s job easier.

"Aggression, discipline, accountability, effort" Brian Dawkins 9/29/2009
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing." Helen Keller
"He will always be a slave who does not know how to live upon a little" Horace

by PositivIntegral on Oct 22, 2009 9:58 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Point well taken, but.....

Did Denver loose TOP in every game they lost last year? I don’t know myself so it may be an unfair or bad question. My guess is that with our “great” Offense and our sorry Defens, we still won TOP but lost the game. BTW, I’m just arguing the side of the argument I lean toward but really don’t have all the answers. Thanks for your insight and bringing your points to the table.

by Broncos or Bust on Oct 22, 2009 10:42 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Aha, here is someone who totally gets it

(except for that grouchy remark of course:)

by warmick on Oct 22, 2009 10:27 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

LOL

Sorry about that, and for mis-quoting your real name “warmick”: I assume you refer to:

Posession is continuos Through a TD and extra pt and KO up to the instant that the returner establishes control with 2 ft in bound or the touchback occurs. If a dominant high school team (or someone playing the raiders) were to successfully on-side kick all game long, that would just mean they never relinquished posession! The raiders would have had posession once to kick off the first or second half, but that would just mean grouchy ’ol warmac is right: even number of posessions, but one lasting 59:56, the other 4 seconds hangtime. I think you could argue that TOP in such a scenario is a pretty revealing stat, but…

Thanks for taking some salt with being called grouchy.

I was wondering what we were arguing about on this happy “Christmas+everybody’s birthday+the new millenium+Guru just won the lottery and is in a sharing mood” bye week, and then I realized that, like McD and his fine team, we can only pat ourselves on the back and grin for so long…there is football to play, to learn, and to debate.

The season…though it may be the best one we ever experience IN OUR LIVES (even if there are more wins later, the freshness and revelation are once in a lifetime)…

this season is still young.

"Aggression, discipline, accountability, effort" Brian Dawkins 9/29/2009
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing." Helen Keller
"He will always be a slave who does not know how to live upon a little" Horace

by PositivIntegral on Oct 23, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

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!
Start posting about the Broncos »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

Music City Miracles
Tennessee Titans Red Zone Report
Bleeding Green Nation
Comcast NFL Red Zone stat of the week - Something doesn't have to give
Niners Nation
49ers Red Zone numbers: How effective are they?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Bronco-pride_small
Sharing the Wealth
Small
To MHR. The Staff. The Fans. The Cynics. And The Koolaiders.
Rmthunder-98logo_small
How to Scout Players and Mock the Draft
20091006_115413_mcdaniels_small
2010 NFL Draft Watch: Defensive Tackles (part 2)
Johnelwayvortexhowler_small
The Front 3: Where we are. Where we're going

Recent FanPosts

Bronco-pride_small
Drew, A Feel Good Story, and A Broncos Connection
Broncoman_1__small
Dan LeFevour - Bronco QB of the Future?
Christmas_09_015_small
This Broncos Fan Is Intrigued by Adding Donovan McNabb
20091006_115413_mcdaniels_small
2010 NFL Draft Watch: Defensive Ends
003_small
Mike Mayocks take on a couple of DT's.
003_small
Denver Broncos 1 of 3 teams looking to trade for Donovan McNabb
Milehighreport_small
Don't book your trip to Dallas just yet...
Asmith_small
The Machinations of a Certified Homer—Early Draft Edition
Rex_small
Favorite Superbowl Commercials
Iwillownu2-flyingbroncoflag-72x72_small
March 5, New Years Day

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Getting Social With MHR

Facebook_badge_medium_medium
Black_generated_button

Milehighreport_email_medium

MHR Radio

SPONSORS

Web Stuff


General Manager/Head Coach

Milehighreport_small John Bena

Cyborg_small Jeremy Bolander

Asst. Head Coach

Mhr_small Steve Nichols

Tahoetim_small Tim Lynch

Tjpic1_small TJ Johnson

Christmas_09_015_small Sayre Bedinger

Quality Control

800px-john_brown_painting_small mdierk