Let’s face it: Even if you subscribe to the “Best Player Available” draft philosophy, it can be hard to watch. The logic behind each and every Broncos’ pick made sense to me. Yet I can’t tally the number of times I nearly spat out my coffee when they moved up to trade a player who wasn’t a Defensive End or Inside Linebacker.

Then I looked more closely at the nubmers for 2008. And I really liked what I saw. Below is a chained series of second-order statistics about the 2008 Broncos. These are culled from NFL.com, Football Reference, and Football Outsiders (references available upon request). After looking through these, I am very comfortable in arguing that the 2009 draft:

a) Will have more positive impact on the 2009 Broncos than a draft full of D-Lineman would have

b) Combined the long-term payoff of a best player available strategy with player selections that smartly address the most fixable problems about the 2008 Broncos.

1)      At 28:43 per game, the Broncos’ ranked 25th in Time of Possession.

2)      At 38.8, the Broncos ranked #3 in passing attempts per game

3)      The Broncos ranked 28th in rushing attempts per game, totaling just 387.

4)      The Ravens, Falcons, Patriots, Panthers and Giants all ran more than 500 times.

5)      The Broncos’ offense ranked #24 in turnovers (coughing up the ball 30 times).

6)      Broncos’ rushers lost 12 fumbles, a figure good for 20th place in the NFL

7)      Fully 29% of the rushes attempted against the Broncos went for 10 yards or more. This figure ranks dead last in the NFL

8)      The Broncos allowed 20 rushes of 20 yards or more, ranking 29th in the NFL

9)      The Broncos allowed 6 rushes of 40 yards or more, tying for 31st in the NFL

10)   The Broncos “stuffed” opponents – holding them to zero or negative yardage on first down and less than a quarter of the yardage needed for a new set of downs on second through fourth downs – 24% of the time. This figure ranks 16th in the NFL

11)   The Broncos ranked tenth in the NFL at stopping opposing rushers on 3rd or 4th down with two yards or less to go

12)   In statistical terms, the Broncos’ 2008 rushing defense skews left. Atypical for a team with high average yards against, the Broncos ranked in the middle of the pack on cutting running plays short. The high rushing average against the Broncos is a product of the ease with which opponents turned 4- and 5-yard gains into 10- and 15-yard gains.

13)  At minus-17, the Broncos ranked 32nd in turnovers.

14)  Playing without Champ Bailey for a good portion of the year, the Broncos’ defense ranked 23rd in the NFL in yardage given up to another team’s top Receiver.

15)  The Broncos’ defense ranked 29th against #2 Receivers, 30th against #3 Receivers, and 31st against Tight Ends.

16)  The Broncos’ defense intercepted 6 passes all year. Only Detroit intercepted fewer.

17)  The Broncos’ defense gave up just 6 passing plays of 40 yards or more, a figure that ties for ninth in the NFL.

18)  The Broncos’ defense gave up 41 passing plays of 20 yards or more, a figure that ranks 15th in the NFL.

19)  Avert your eyes on virtually all other passing statistics.

20)  Adjusting for the distortions of high altitude, the Broncos’ special teams ranked 32nd in the NFL – and by a comfortable margin – in total yardage impact (this according to Football Outsiders, whom I trust immensely).

21)  The Broncos’ special teams were worse in preventing return yardage than in generating it.

22)  A total of eight AFC teams apart from the Broncos will run 3-4 defenses (or hybrids thereof) in 2009. These include the Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Dolphins and Chargers.

23)  Put another way, five of the six AFC playoff teams, and eight of the last nine superbowl entrants, run 30 fronts.

That’s a lot of information, and I’m no head coach. But I will argue strongly that four specific team weaknesses emerge from the chart above. And that the draft picks do a remarkable job of addressing the weaknesses.

First, the 2008 Broncos hurt for ball control (tip of the hat to Ted Bartlett, HT, and everyone else who identified this point). The defense spent a lot of time on the field. And remarkably, Broncos running were near the top of the league in coughing the ball up, despite the fact that they were near the bottom of the league in carries. Flooding the team with new running backs potentially solves several problems at once: It improves time of possession and eliminates part of the horrific turnover problem. It will take the pressure off Orton (it is entirely noteworthy that the Patriots offense on which Matt Cassell flourished last year was a top-five offense in rushing attempts).

Second, the rushing defense was terrible in specific ways that the new regime has taken great care to address. Yes, the Broncos gave up five yards per carry, and yes it’s unacceptable. And while we all want more and better beef on the defensive line, the breakdown of the distribution of rushes against the Broncos suggest that the need isn’t as urgent as we thought. As many posters here noted last year, and as the McDaniels team identified when it took over the Broncos, terrible play at middle linebacker and terrible tackling by the secondary played a huge role in the running-defense breakdowns. I’ll put it another way: If the tackling behind the defensive line had been merely average, the running defense would have improved from 30th in the league to middle-of-the-pack.

And so we are no presented with new starters at MLB and both safety positions. Dre Bly was swapped for a cornerback who’s better in run support (among other merits). Alphonso Smith is good in run support. And so on. I’m a big believer in investing in the defensive line, but the numbers said the most glaring problem in run support originated in the backfield.

Third, the strategy of drafting pass defenders who will cover #3 and #4 WRs and TEs also seems well fitted the problems with the Broncos’ pass defense. The pass defense on the whole was wretched. But again, the story is more complicated. We all know there was a lack of pressure on the QB. The most obvious response has been to draft Ayers and shift to a defensive alignment that provides more options for rushing the passer. But adding Smith and McBath fits this strategy, too. The statistics tell us what our eyes told us all year: it wasn’t the #1 receiver we needed to fear, it was the second and third receiving options, and, above all else, the tight end. I can’t speak to the coverage skills of whoever the new LB corps will be on game day. But drafting two skilled pass defenders who will contribute heavily on third down – you know, the down when the Broncos just couldn’t get off the field – sure seems like a good fit for the problems out there. If you’re ready to pound your keyboard and yell about the pass rush now, please stop. They drafted a highly rated pass rusher in the first round, remember?

Fourth, if you adjust for the skewing impact of altitude, the Broncos’ special teams were even worse than we thought they were. Smith, McBath, McKinley, Bruton are all noted special teams contributors.

Fifth, the road to the Super Bowl is paved with domineering 3-4 fronts. Richard Quinn rates as a fantastic blocker at a position that’s key to stopping 3-4 rushes (which can avoid or work around monsters like Clady if properly used).

There are a host of other arguments to be made about the draft strategy. Richard Quinn and the trade of a #1 in 2010 were probably part of some cap-management strategy designed to free up future money for Royal and Clady. The available DL prospects underwhelmed. For better or worse, team McXanders really likes Ronnie Fields and Andra Davis.

My argument is that the most readily fixable problems with the 2008 Broncos were:

Ball control

Turnovers (on both sides of the ball)

Long rushes against

Pass plays targeted against nickel backs, dime backs and safeties

Special teams

The draft executed this weekend maximized value by avoiding reaches for front-seven players. That’s good in the long run. But in the short run, it a actually goes a long way to fixing what was most broken with the 2008 Broncos.