The Denver Broncos Red Zone Report - Week 4

by John Bena on Oct 7, 2009 10:19 PM MDT in 2009 Game Recap Comment 20 comments

More photos » by Chris Schneider - AP

Plays like this by Champ Bailey in the Broncos Red Zone have help the team start the 2009 Season 4-0.(AP Photo/Chris Schneider, File)

Browse more photos »

This post is sponsored by Comcast and their NFL RedZone channel. Want to see every touchdown from every NFL game as it happens as well as live look-ins to all of Sunday's games in key situations? Then you need Comcast's NFL RedZone.

If we are going to have a sponsorship deal, we might as well find a way to incorporate said sponsorship into something that is near and dear to Broncos fans - the team's performance in the Red Zone. This has been a key point of contention for a long time with Denver - take last year into account - 2nd in Yards, 16th in points.

Each week we'll take a look at the Broncos' trips into the Red Zone and how they fared. Good teams, playoffs teams, score in the Red Zone. If the Broncos want to be a playoff team, they'll need to as well.

There are two sides to the Red Zone - the offensive side, of course, and the defensive side. Few people look at how a defense performs when backed up in their own Red Zone but it is vital to the success of the team, no doubt. We'll look at both.

OFFENSE

For the game, the Broncos crossed the Cowboys' 20 just twice. The first time, of course, was after the D.J. Williams recovery of a Tony Romo fumble. The Cowboys were dominating the game at the time and the defense needed to make a play. They did when Renaldo Hill blitzed from Romo's blindside and knocked the ball loose.

Williams recovered at the Cowboys' 9-yard line and the Broncos wasted little time. Kyle Orton found Knowshon Moreno, somehow fitting the ball past DE Anthony Spencer, for the rookie's first-career TD reception.

The second trip came in the 4th Quarter with the Cowboys leading 10-7. After taking over at their own 25, Kyle Orton and the offense went on a 10-play, 65-yard drive to the Cowboys 10-yard line before being forced to kick the tying field goal.

Depending how you look at it, the Broncos were either 2/2 in the Red Zone, or 1/2 since they failed to convert a TD in their 2nd trip. For our purposes, only TDs count.

'09 OFFENSE TOTALS

WEEK	OPPONENT	RZ EFFICIENCY
1	@ CIN	0/0
2	vs. CLE	2/4
3	@ OAK	2/6
4	vs. DAL	1/2
	TOTALS	5/12 (41.7%)

DEFENSE

The Broncos defense has been stingy all year, coming into Sunday's game with Dallas allowing just 4 trips inside their Red Zone, TOTAL, in 3 games. Dallas was by far the best team the Broncos had faced, however, and it was not only going to be a test to keep them out of the Red Zone, but to stop them once they did make it. Another test passed for these new-age Broncos defenders.

The Cowboys did get inside the Broncos' 20 three times on Sunday, but only came away with a touchdown once. The Broncos D also came up with a big play near their own Goal Line, as Champ Bailey intercepted a Tony Romo pass - keeping the score, at that time, 10-7 Cowboys. Even a Field Goal there could have changed the complexion of the game.

For the season, the Broncos' Defense is one of the best in football inside its own Red Zone -

'09 DEFENSE TOTALS

WEEK	OPPONENT	RZ EFFICIENCY
1	@ CIN	1/2
2	Vs. CLE	0/1
3	@ OAK	0/1
4	Vs. DAL	1/3
	TOTALS	2/7(28.6%)

5 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Also in these stats

is the fact that we have been in the red zone 12 times and our opponents only 7. That is also a positive stat.

Wherever you go, there you are.

by YosemiteSam on Oct 7, 2009 10:31 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

Exactly What I noticed

by studbucket on Oct 7, 2009 10:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Great point. Just shows that our Defense gets a lot of credit for us winning and our offense is just a few pieces away from being really good.

"Precipitation, which side are you on?
Are you on the rise? Are you falling down?
Let me know, Come on let's go, yeah
Got some if you need it!" -EV

by sadaraine on Oct 8, 2009 8:52 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems like field goals should count for something

perhaps make it “points per trip into the red zone”

Hugo Norton

by Hugo Norton on Oct 7, 2009 10:35 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the report John.

I, like John Madden feel that you get the points when the time arises. Going 4th and 1 is plain stupid when it constitutes a tie in a game. Clearly a fubar (fouled up beyond all recognition) on McDaniels part and if he is going to dictate tp the players how ‘they’ should perform on the field then he needs to put his actions where his mouth is. Please don’t get me wrong because I believe more than anybody that he is doing a tremendous job with what he had. But make sound decisions when the time warrants it, seriously.

by bfree2bronc on Oct 8, 2009 12:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

glad somebody noticed

on 4th and 1 with a chance to tie the game, clearly with defensive momentum i can’t figure the decision to go for the first. seems like the coach overlooked one there.

by golfdoc on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose I disagree

First off – it is a statement on how much he trusts our Defense that he feels that even if we miss, the opponent won’t be able to make anything of it, and we’ll get the ball back soon.

But here is the other reason it wasn’t FUBAR. Statistically there is about a 53% chance of converting on fourth down situations (at least by 2008 data).

Let’s say you are fourth-and-one at the goalline and decide to go for the field goal. 3 points. Then you kick-off and the game continues. Later on you are in the same situation. You decide to go for the field goal again for another 3 points. These two decisions, IF both attempts were successful, will yeild 6 points. Okay so rewind and say you go for the conversion on 4-1. Statistically it could go either way. Let’s say you only convert one of those two times for a touchdown. That’s still more points at 7 gained than if you had made both of those FG attempts, plus the added bonus of showing your offense that you have confidence in them – and in fact expect and demand that kind of productivity.

Okay so lets say the 4-1 isn’t right at the goalline. It’s still something to consider depending on your field position. 20 yard line? Even if you fail, that’s still only the touchback field position you’d be giving your opponent. Beyond that, I guess it’s how much you trust both your offense (to make the conversion) and defense (if you don’t). To go for it says you have faith in your team, that you expect and demand a higher level of productivity, at the risk of getting all the blame for making a “stupid call.” Rather than going the safe route that won’t get you criticized but doesn’t exactly energize your team, either. And remember that statistically there is a little better than half chance you’ll make it anyway.

I’m not saying you should ALWAYS try to convert the fourth-down, but I just think that it’s a little short-sited to say it was a FUBAR call.

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 8, 2009 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

please note

the chances of converting at fourth-and-goal when throwing against Champ Bailey is significantly diminished. :-D

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 8, 2009 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

Field Position

I agree with Kitten. A field goal may give the cowgirls better field position (statistically around the 32) instead of on the 1. It is not a normal decision, I grant you, since most coaches will call for a field goal. Yet it serves this team well early in the season to know that the coach has confidence in both the offense and the defense. I am not inclined to call it FUBAR but maybe IDUT (I don’t understand it).

by Endzone on Oct 8, 2009 11:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Comcast

Tell me again why you are shilling for Comcast?

by Endzone on Oct 8, 2009 12:39 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Comcast

They’re sponsoring the site and Comcast Red Zone is pretty darn cool. That’s why.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Oct 8, 2009 7:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sponsorship

I have yet to see an explanation of exactly what that sponsorship means. There is advertising all over this page. There should be plenty of income generated by that advertising. John has said neither he nor the MHR staff is getting paid. But what exactly is Comcast doing? Are they paying the $50 per year website fee? Paying $500 for annual server hosting fees? Just exactly WHAT are they doing?

I am not opposed to sponsorship. I’m just wanting a fuller explanation. Especially when the lead-in to an article is prefaced with a shill for Comcast.

by Endzone on Oct 8, 2009 11:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

EZ,

Do you not understand the free enterprise system? I cannot understand why you think you have any explanation coming in this matter. Obviously, advertising is what keeps websites viable. I, for one, am absolutely thrilled to have MHR and the hours that John spends make it the best Broncos site by far. The sponsorship and advertising are John’s business, not ours.

If this were a user owned site you would have a right to an accounting… but it’s not.

" Life is what happens while you're making other plans "

by hairybear on Oct 8, 2009 1:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure EZ understands free enterprise

I’m actually curious as to what exactly the sponsorship means, too. I mean, I haven’t really noticed ads on the website for Comcast’s NFL RedZone channel. So what does it mean exactly that they are sponsoring MHR? That’s all. I think it’s a fair question.

I know the sponsorship isn’t technically any of my business, but Guru chose to make a big announcement about it on the site, so what’s the big deal asking what this new development means?

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 8, 2009 2:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just A Question

I have no right to demand nor am I demanding an explanation. Maybe I should not have used the word “shill” as it has some negative connotations. Maybe pitching or promoting or something like that. I deeply appreciate John and all of MHR and, for that matter, SBNation.

by Endzone on Oct 8, 2009 3:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

EZ, didn't mean to flame you.

In the past few months I have seen at least 2 comments questioning John’s motives or posts and I really appreciate John and this site. I believe that he said that “The NFL Red Zone” was sponsoring the Red Zone Report. Obviously I misunderstood the intent of your post and reacted wrongly. You have my apologies.

" Life is what happens while you're making other plans "

by hairybear on Oct 8, 2009 6:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love them or Hate them

They are sponsoring the site. When someone gives and you accept, you need to give them recognition. We’re a little blog in a big Internet (well…big blog, but you get the point)…kudos to Comcast for the sponsorship.

"Precipitation, which side are you on?
Are you on the rise? Are you falling down?
Let me know, Come on let's go, yeah
Got some if you need it!" -EV

by sadaraine on Oct 8, 2009 8:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Concern

IMO, they clearly need to get better in the red zone. 2/6 against the raders is especially frustrating.

They’ll get there.

Richard Seymour is a girl.

by pubkeeper on Oct 8, 2009 9:00 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

One of those was a kneel down at the end of the game

It helps to keep that in perspective. We weren’t trying for a touchdown there. Still your point is valid. 2/5 is ok, but against the Raiders it shoudl have been better.

People can use statistics to prove anything, 87% of all people know that.

by c_style on Oct 8, 2009 4:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs