Open discussion regarding Denver's new offense
I'm a big believer in the the adage that 'past performance predicts future success'. However, it's tough to say that when the offense has changed, the coach has changed, and personnel has changed to the degree that it has.
In hoping to keep this objective, I put together two charts. The first charts New England's offensive yards and points production from 2002 to last year. The second charts Denver's offensive yards and points production over the same span. I figure that coach McDaniels took a huge role with the offense in 2005 but had some effect on the team before then (however small) and over time I wanted to see where the offense was and what it did once he took a prominent role with the offense and see if I could draw any conclusions regarding what he's hoping to accomplish in Denver over the next few seasons. Also, the Pats are generally the measuring stick for a successful NFL franchise, so why not look at the tale of the tape and compare the Broncos with New Engalnd.
I'm not neccesarily trying to prove anything, rather I'm attempting to look to MHR for some conclusions and hypothesis for what did and could possibly happen in the short term future of the Broncos offense.
I have a handful more of these charts and I hope to get them out onto MHR in the next few weeks.
Top Chart: Pats' Yards and Points rankings in the NFL from 2002 to 2008
Bottom Chart: Denver's Yards and Points rankings in the NFL from 2002 to 2008
The first thing I noticed is that New England typically ranks higher in points than in yards. My assumption is that the Pats typically have a very high ranking in the all important yards per point statistic. In 2008, they were ranked 14th (just behind New Orleans and Indy and just ahead of Pittsburgh) in the NFL which is a fairly low ranking considering that they are typically in or near the top 5 in the league. McDaniels took a prominent role in 2005 and since that year they ranking has been up and to the right with the exception of 2008 when they lost their best offensive player in the first game of the season. I think the fact that New England still ranked how it did with a QB who hadn't done anything, ever, is very impressive. Aside from last year's inefficiency relative to a higher yards ranking to points ranking, the only other time we see this is 2005, when New Engalnd was beaten in the divisional playoffs in Denver. Since 2002, the Pats have gone to the Super Bowl or AFC Championship every year (sans 2002) that they have had a better points ranking than yards ranking.
Note that the one year Denver ranked higher in points than it did in yards, it switched QBs midseason and had a very conservative offense. In 2008 Denver ranked 28th in yards per point (behind Oakland and KC and just ahead of the Browns and Bengals). Denver typically ranks higher in yardage than points and since 2002 their ranking seems to worsen over time. In 2008, there was a marked difference in yardage, but no such dramatic jump in points. What caused such a disparity? Much has been made of it but the inability to execute in the red zone, turnovers, missed opportunities, personnel deficiencies in the backfield, and (possibly) a generally unimaginitive red zone playbook. It looks like Denver can move the ball well, just not past the goal line.
I don't want to get into the numbers too deeply without opening this up to MHR. I don't think that this information is black and white but it does draw attention to the big picture, which is that Denver's offense was getting more ineffieceint while New England's was learning to get generally more effiecient.
What are your thoughts?
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
6 recs |
75 comments
|
Comments
I can't wait to see McD and company in action. This year has been the most
exciting, anticipated year of Broncos football since I became a fan. I think the new offense that McD is going to incorporate with the Broncos is going to be stellar. He does make it sound like it’s going to be difficult to learn though. This year’s offense is going to be a scoring machine!!!
"When you put on that jersey, the name on the front is more important than the name on the back." - "Miracle".
"Winning means you're willing to go longer, work harder, and give more than anyone else." - Vince Lombardi.
by broncoholic on Jul 27, 2009 11:41 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The Patriots Offense vs. the Broncos Offense
One of my off the top of my head thoughts is the Patriots put up fewer yards and scored more because their special teams and defense gave allowed them much better field position than the Broncos defense has presented the Broncos offense the past two-and-a-half seasons.
by RSH089 on Jul 27, 2009 11:49 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
That jumped into my head as well, and is why I like McDaniels’ focus on special teams, something that wasn’t here with Shanny.
No stairway... Denied!
by papigrande on Jul 27, 2009 4:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice work Super7
I think your charts show only a piece of a bigger puzzle. The Pats defense has been more consistent than the Broncos over the same span and helped give them a shorter field to score on. At the same time the Broncos over that span haven’t always had a short field to play on thus having ot make up yards and not necessarily score.
by bchiper on Jul 27, 2009 11:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks
I think thats a small part of it, but the biggest differences to me are that Denver wasn’t confusing anyone after the 1st quarter of every game and really had trouble getting into the endzone. We can’t blame offensive inefficiency on defense or special teams even though they are responsible for small bits of it. The biggest issue IMO was turnovers, poor execution, and lack of a running game that scares anyone for most games.
by super7 on Jul 27, 2009 11:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outstanding super 7 and I can't wait to watch the Broncos in actions.
I posted yesterday that I expect the Broncos to make less yards but more points, and going with a better defense and special teams play, we should win more games then we did last year. There is no reason not to. 13-3 Baby!!! Until we’re not.
by bfree2bronc on Jul 27, 2009 12:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Very good illustration!
I think your conclusions are correct. What we learned from the Broncos is the concept of “empty yards” (my term), which means a lot of yards to nowhere.
The Pats have “efficient yards” (again, a made up term) which are yards that actually lead to an endzone or field goal.
As a defensive coordinator who used the bend don’t break philosophy, I was always happy to give up empty yards. The other team took time off the clock, and had more time to make mistakes (turnovers), but were not going to score without spending a lot of time (and just plain likely not to score at all).
Yards are nice, but without points they are a stat without meaning.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jul 27, 2009 12:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I also like "yards to nowhere"
YTN. Catchy! You should trademark that one, as well. : )
"Talk about the Broncos and I'm gonna 'put my dukes up'. I'm gonna hit you with these rings." -- Rod Smith giving the Kennison rebuttal to Jamie Dukes
by broncosmontana on Jul 27, 2009 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Those terms are sufficient. =)
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
by KaptainKirk on Jul 27, 2009 3:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
After looking at the numbers....
I had to back to the 2004 and 2005 stats in order to see for myself what the difference was.
It looks to me that AFTER 2005 the Broncos got away from what we always did best. Running the ball. Each year we became less and less balanced and leaned more and more on the passing game.
2004-4089pass, 2333rush (Balanced,maybe heavy pass)
2005-3373pass, 2539rush (Balanced)
2006-2995pass, 2152rush (terrible all around)
2007-3759pass, 1862rush (Heavy pass)
2008-4545pass, 1957rush (whoa Nelly, heavy pass)
by Kdo09 on Jul 27, 2009 12:59 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't remember who said it
…but only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad.
by super7 on Jul 27, 2009 1:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woody Hayes.
Old school coach of Ohio State back in my youth. His favorite (only) offense was the rush, three yards and a cloud of dust.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jul 27, 2009 1:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also liked
Green bay’s Running for Daylight offense. :)
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
by USMCWall on Jul 27, 2009 2:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Anderson
Denver hasn’t had that running back that could get you2.5 yards when you needed 2 since Mike wasn’t resigned. Might be a reason for going pass heavy and the reason why McD got Mike Anderson type runners.
"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me
by 3nS on Jul 27, 2009 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about Hillis?
But who will guard the guards themselves?
by Agent Jerry Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
Hillis is one of those types but only really played in a couple of games and if it wasn’t for injuries we would still not know what Hillis is about. My comment was more of shining a light on one of the previous regimes talent evaluation-scheme mistakes(IMO) than to criticize current players.
"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me
by 3nS on Jul 27, 2009 4:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
gotcha
But who will guard the guards themselves?
by Agent Jerry Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing for sure he showed alot of heart and this a great achievement in this business,
plus he got some valuble experience for this up coming season. Can’t wait to see this all unfold.
by bfree2bronc on Jul 27, 2009 10:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Super charts super !!
Great visual of one of our downfalls last year. Of course one of our problems last year was not having a RB to help with the load—but we definitely had a problem.
Obviously McDaniels saw the problem also thus the Moreno pick.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Jul 27, 2009 1:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The Moreno pick
was possibly my favorite of the offseason. Hope we see him soon and often!
"Talk about the Broncos and I'm gonna 'put my dukes up'. I'm gonna hit you with these rings." -- Rod Smith giving the Kennison rebuttal to Jamie Dukes
by broncosmontana on Jul 27, 2009 3:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
funny.........Wasn't mine.....but it just may become
I guess we’ll see.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Jul 28, 2009 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tough to sasy anything about these stats without more info
What would be more useful would be to see if your Yards/Point stat actually has any consistency or predictability…. Without seeing more teams and trends, this is impossible to evaluate.
My sense is it is largely driven by DEF and Special Teams quality… so I’d expect teams with solid Offenses and Good Defenses like Pitt, Baltimore, Philly and NE to consistently perform well.
Teams with inconsistent “big play” offenses and bad defenses will likely perform worse, because their only scores are of the long variety, with a lot of short drives and punts.
Empty yards are not really “empty yards” if they are flipping field position, tiring out the DEF, etc.
What I really think you need is the more advanced efficiency stats, either on a per-play basis (like FootballOutsiders and others have developed), or per-Drive stats (i.e # of first downs, average drive length, turnovers, etc.)…
by cjfarls on Jul 27, 2009 2:01 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the point
I was hoping to get some thoughts like yours but with stats. I don’t have the time or inclination to look everything up and provide it. I was hoping to get replies like Kdo99’s that can add some color by stats to the discussion.
I’m just looking at the big picture here and hoping for more color from MHR readers.
I can post FO’s stats, or you can go to their site and check them out and look up what you want.
by super7 on Jul 27, 2009 2:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personnel
The problem with predicting the portability of the NE offense to Denver is that over the NE Dynasty they’ve had two pretty special players in Brady and Moss. I guess with Brady you can always make the chicken or egg argument: Did the system make him or vise-versa? (I personally don’t know the answer to that one) But the evidence is clear that it was Moss that elevated the NE offense from merely effecient to explosive and sometimes seemingly impossible to defend. I think the Moss factor is vastly underrated in the making of both McDaniels and Matt Cassell’s legend (although I’m still very pro-McD at this point).
The fact is, Randy Moss isn’t reporting to Dove Valley any time soon. Because of that, though I’m excited about the new offense, my expectations come with nagging restraint. I like the personnel we have for the offense as I understand it, but the lack of a deep threat and the lack of a feared QB might have some major implications. We’ll see, I guess.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
by PredominantlyOrange on Jul 27, 2009 3:36 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Deep Threat
PDO, I respectfully disagree that we won’t have a deep threat. We have the same (and more) receivers as last year and the same (and more) Oline. Just because Orton may not be “feared” right now doesn’t mean he can’t or we won’t throw the long ball. Everything I’ve read and seen indicates he can throw a good long ball. The Bears scheme didn’t feature many long balls, in part because their Oline couldn’t hold up long enough for a QB to throw a long ball.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 4:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a dig on Orton
I think he’s capable. He coould be very good. We just don’t have anybody that can flat out stretch a D like Moss.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
by PredominantlyOrange on Jul 27, 2009 5:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe True
There are very few receivers in Moss’ class.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 7:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marshall
Was a disappointment as a rookie and then moved up the charts. He was injured last year. So I believe he has a lot of potential to be really really good. He is a better blocker than Moss and can catch the ball in traffic and then get yards after the catch. I’m hoping he is healthy and gets these off-field issues out of his life. If so, then he just might stretch the field like Moss.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 7:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interview
Did you watch his interview on Denverbroncos.com today. I think there is something in the works, depending on his courtcase.
"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me
by 3nS on Jul 27, 2009 7:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interview
He appears to have a good attitude. But I’ve heard his good words before. His actions will speak volumes. There is an undercurrent that contract talks are occurring. I don’t think he is unhappy being here. He just wants more $ = respect. oh, an win some football games.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 7:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mr. B
I think Mr. B gave Marshall the OK to go shopping if he give him the opportunity to counter. Based on his legal stuff, he didnt get what he thought he could, and Bowlen will be willing to pay him in due time. Just a theory.
by AttwaterForHOF on Jul 27, 2009 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Bmarsh will get what he earns. Bowlen has always been good with players.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 7:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I think it will come sooner than later if he produces and stays out of trouble
by bfree2bronc on Jul 27, 2009 9:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
TD
If memory serves, Terrell Davis didn’t ask for a raise but Bowlen gave it to him out of the blue anyway. Bowlen has been and always will be generous with players who produce and are good people. Bowlen may have done a few stupid things over the years (like that ignoramus fur coat he wore the first year he owned the team), but over the years the Broncos have been more than a business for him. It’s all about people and winning football. The legal contracts and “stuff” will take care of themselves as far as he’s concerned.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 9:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I know
is that whatever happens that no one should be surprised that the MSM will use the outcome good or bad as an excuse to say the broncos will have a bad year.
"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me
by 3nS on Jul 27, 2009 8:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randy wasn't there
when the Pats won three rings in four years. I agree that he makes that offense special, but it would run pretty well without him.
by Kdo09 on Jul 27, 2009 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Brady was.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very upbeat and optimistic about this offense in Denver. I just think its hard to discern much about a scheme when your example has been driven by two very special players. I think a lot of people are expecting an explosiveness that isn’t necessarily inherent in the scheme.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
by PredominantlyOrange on Jul 28, 2009 8:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is an excellent point
But what are you trying to do PO?
That kind of talk can turn one’s Kool-Aid from Orange and Blue to (what do orange and blue make when you mix them?)…. Brown? – Oh, well, I’ll save that batch for the throwback games
= )
Just kidding, and that is something I think a lot of us La La Land-ers tend to keep in the back of our minds, or never let surface. But yes, similar schemes with ANY different players doesn’t automatically constitute equivalent results. Though in this case, I believe we’ll see an IMPROVEMENT to those results! That’d be far out
; )
First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and we oughtta let someone else have a fair shot : )
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jul 28, 2009 8:50 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown Kool-Aid
Yum-Yum! ?
"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me
by 3nS on Jul 28, 2009 9:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ONLY
for the throwback games…. Might save some in a jar, and hang a throwback Eddie Royal jersey on the wall next to it
First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and we oughtta let someone else have a fair shot : )
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jul 28, 2009 9:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really, Really Good Kool Aid...
…can cause disporportionate backlash. Its a law of the universe, I think. I love MHR and all of its enthusiasm, but I’ve learned the hard way that restraining my own expectations is a good defense mechanism.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
by PredominantlyOrange on Jul 28, 2009 9:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kool Aid laws of the universe
I can dig
= )
First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and we oughtta let someone else have a fair shot : )
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jul 28, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!
I agree with PdO that Moss was a key ingredient to NE’s offense.
Elite WRs that are unstoppable one-on-one, like Moss, Fitz, Steve Smith, TO, Colston or Andre Johnson create a huge schematic imbalance. A healthy Antonio Gates does the same thing. They make it virtually impossible for a D to cover everything, and can make good but not spectacular players (like Wes Welker, Kevin Walters, Jake Delhomme, etc.) look like superstars. Defenses are given the choice of risking getting burned by the big WR, or selling out and leaving huge vulnerability’s against the run and/or other receivers.
note that besides Steve Smith, each fo these guys are big, fast and get massive YAC. One of the reasons they are so dangerous is because even if the CB has good coverage, their ability to break a tackle and take even short receptions to the house requires the DEF to shade the safeties their direction. They take away any room for error the D has, because they stretch the field both vertically, and horizantally at the same time. He dictates defensive adjustments pre-snap…
This is why I think its REALLY important for B-Marsh to come in and be productive for the Broncs. The WR depth and Royal’s ability to beat coverage the offense will likely be semi-productive regardless, but no B-Marsh means a lot more pressure on Orton to make the right reads and find the open guy. Having B-Marsh however vastly simplifies those reads, because if the D adjusts to B-Marsh, Royal or Scheff/Stokes will almost assuredly be open. He basically has 1 pre-snap/quick read on B-Marsh, and then 2 quick looks. If the D does not adjust, B-Marsh has the abiliy to make them pay big regardless of whether he’s running a quick slant, short curl, or taking it deep. Its much more than just being a “deep threat”.
With no B-Marsh, one of Royal/Scheff/Stokes are likely to be open any given play… but Orton will have a lot harder time finding which one. If you have a Brady or a Manning or a McNabb, this is less of a big deal… but I don’t know that I put Orton in that category.
Ironically however, Orton may actually be better in a “non-Bmarsh” situation than Cutler would’ve been, because Cutler’s biggest flaw (a tendency to lock onto a single receiver) would be maginified by the loss of the big-man receiver. With B-marsh, Cutler’s big flaw was minimized because B-Marsh simplified the reads. Orton’s style and decision making may be better suited to having more depth in the WR corp rather than the one “elite” guy that in some instances became a crutch for Cutler. Orton’s relative physical limitations become less a big deal if he has a good oline that gives him time to make the smart and potentially time consuming reads necessary to find the open man…
In many ways its the other side of the coin of having a healthy “shutdown corner” like Champ Bailey or Nmandi Asamougha, who by their very presence can “reverse” dictate how to adjust their zones or coverage schemes.
by cjfarls on Jul 28, 2009 10:54 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ditto
You made my point far better than me. You nailed it.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
by PredominantlyOrange on Jul 28, 2009 12:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If BMarsh is BabyTO...
…then Tony Scheffler is BabyBM. He’s 6’5", 255#, and he runs the 40 in 4.54. BM’s Combine 40 time was 4.56. If McD wanted to, he could play Scheff as a big WR in place of BM. He could do that and still have a 2TE set with Graham and Quinn. If Quinn isn’t ready, another great 250# player could be Hillis. I don’t think McD is going to be hamstrung with titles (but, but, but, Scheff is a TE – he can’t line up like a WR!!! – and Hillis is a FB fer Chrissakes!)
I think if you put a fast 6’5" guy with explosive speed and 255# of chisel up against a CB, especially a 5’9" CB, odds are good you’ll have a completion. I think Scheff could step in and handle a big, over the middle, possession receiver position easily. We have other WR with top end speed that can stretch the field vertically, but that isn’t what BM does. As CJ so eloquently said, a big possession receiver can make the safeties shade over. We have a guy on the roster right now that can take BM’s place tomorrow.
Here’s a package for you. 2 TE: Graham and Quinn. 2 WR: Scheffler and Hillis. RB: Jordan. There isn’t a ball handler under 240# in this package and every one of them can catch. Depending on the formation, it could be a goal line run up the middle or a 5 recieiver set. Put Hillis in a tight slot and motion Scheffler into the backfield and you have a pretty tough run package. Or leave the WRs wide and then motion Jordan out into a slot for a horizontal spread. It doesn’t really matter what personnel the defense has on the field – with this package you can get a mismatch. And this package has BM not even suited for the game. Are you listening, Brandon?
Wherever you go, there you are.
by YosemiteSam on Jul 28, 2009 8:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice super7
Like you, my time is maximized right now, but I would love to see more of your findings. These are great visual aids.
Maybe you can get some help with this(like Aimee does for Agent Jerry). :-)
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
by KaptainKirk on Jul 27, 2009 3:55 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic post!
I like the way the Broncos have gone, but I still believe that 8-8 would be a huge step forward from last year…all things considered.
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
by Tim Lynch on Jul 27, 2009 4:03 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I like McD's statements that whe is planning new approaches to the offense
This goes back to the predraft and postdraft discussions when McD coyly claimed that there will be something in our running game that hasn’t been done before. Now he’s stating that in general terms for the offense. It’s something to look for, and it’s a chance to permit him to explore new ways to employ our players. I can’t wait
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on Jul 27, 2009 5:30 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
whole team stat
Hello all. New here. I have been reading MHR for only a few months but have been a die hard Broncos fan for life. One of my first memories was the Dallas SB and have missed very few games from that time on.
Some other posters alluded to this fact but I think that you most likely found the most applicable ‘whole team’ stat I have seen yet. You cant talk about the yards/points ratio without taking into account field position and you cant consider field position without considering both defense and the kicking game. If the field position is consistently bad, as ours was, then it will require more yards to score the same points. If you add to that a poor red zone percentage, that will take the stat even farther down. In order for this stat to be good, the all three groups must be playing well. If the defense and the kicking team are performing well, then the offense will have a shorter field. However, it is then on the offense to do their part and push the ball into the end zone.
Every group has to power to directly effect the performance of the other groups. If the offense has a lot of 3&outs, then the defense will tire out. If the defense is tired, the opposition will take advantage and grind the game with possession play calling. This tires them out more and takes the offense out of their groove as they sit and watch (playing keep away). If the return team does a poor job, then the offense has a long field and a fired up / rested defense. Everyone thought that it was all the defense’s fault last year, but McD saw that the offense and kicking game were not helping them any. The offense had the tendency to score quickly or fizzle out quickly. If they fizzled out quickly then the punt would be from deep in Denver terr. Add to that a poor coverage and the result was a short field. The D has had little rest and now must defend a said short field. If we scored, the situation would only be slightly better because the coverage was still poor and they still got little rest. JC consistently failed to ‘take what he was given’. This resulted in spectacular ‘against the odds’ plays as well as no touch bullets to wide open guys as well as no touch bullets into triple coverage to the first or second read. McD wants to control the ball first, because that helps the defense… so the defense can help the offense. This, including better special teams play, is the way to increase the points / yards ratio. Increasing this stat means the the entire team is playing well, and will surely result in wins.
by AttwaterForHOF on Jul 27, 2009 6:53 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Heck yeah.
Anyone pro-Atwater is a Denver Die Hard to me! Welcome aboard At4HOF
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
by USMCWall on Jul 27, 2009 7:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome AttwaterForHOF
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
by KaptainKirk on Jul 27, 2009 7:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome man and great post!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
"Peyton Hillis didn’t rip the sleeves off his jersey, they flew off out of fear."
Calijoefornia.
by boydy2669 on Jul 27, 2009 8:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stupid Observation
Shanahan and the players were always saying IF they did this or that then “good things will happen” at the end of every sentence. (Maybe it was “opportunity to be special”).
I’m not hearing that phraseology this year. Maybe it is that the amazing grasp of the obvious statements are no longer felt to be necessary?
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 7:57 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I got that from Jay everytime they lost too.
by bfree2bronc on Jul 27, 2009 8:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Catch Phrase
It just seemed like a stupid knee-jerk reflexive comment to any question.
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 9:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That reminds me of "Bull Durham"
“I’m just here to help the team”, “We’re going to play one day at a time…”
by AllBroncsallday on Jul 28, 2009 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally
I like the “sloppy wet kisses that last for 3 days.”
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
by KaptainKirk on Jul 28, 2009 12:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point Endzone.
Those were called “excuses” by the way.
: )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jul 28, 2009 3:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just caught this over at Denverbroncos.com Brandon Marshall talks about team first attitude. I'ma, I'ma, I.
“Another 100 catch season, go to the playoffs, hopefully make it to the big game — that is the best scenario for any football player,” he said of his goals. “I’m excited. I’m on track to being 100 percent. I’m on track to do some big things and hopefully I can get to the playoffs and win some games.”
by bfree2bronc on Jul 27, 2009 11:14 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Saw that. I think Bmarsh is onboard. Maybe not quite happy yet, but he’s onboard. That’s a good thing. He may not be quite the elite WR he thinks he is, but he is very good and has potential to be extremely good. I’m hoping his off-field misadventures are behind him and he’ll have a happy and productive year!
by Endzone on Jul 27, 2009 11:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Realistically...
How can he expect to be happy with the consequences of his choices, when deep down he knows the rewards he could be reaping for walking a straighter line when fans (young and old alike) are watching him everyday.
He deserves the delay on the big paycheck… but the guy seems to have a great heart. I hope this stuff from the past clears itself up and he keeps his nose clean. The guy will deserve an even bigger paycheck then, than what the others are getting.
It’s hard to change your ways, especially with little support from your closest peers.
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
by USMCWall on Jul 27, 2009 11:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BMarsh,
I love him to death… and sometimes a guy needs a little tough love. I believe he’s got the inner strength to fight through it. He is a special player, and special personality.
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
by USMCWall on Jul 27, 2009 11:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the point is that
he said “I” a lot, as opposed to getting somewher with the team.
Of course, he hardly knows anybody on the team yet, so… :)
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 27, 2009 11:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'ma I
True. He’s got a lot of humble pie to eat first. And it sounds like there are still contract/trade issues being discussed. He was responding to questions about his own feelings, so it is natural to respond with “I”. It’s a passing grade for me, not A+, on his attitude.
by Endzone on Jul 28, 2009 12:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the provocative post
This will be one of the most exciting seasons of this new century thus far. That much is for certain.
What isn’t is my (our?) general understanding of exactly what our O will look like via schemes and play calling…. I can’t wait to see the style we use, or what kind of finesse we show while performing. Oh, grandeur, will thou be-eth present and endure with Us, for the entirety of the season?
(Yes and) Thanks again super7!
First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and we oughtta let someone else have a fair shot : )
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jul 28, 2009 8:58 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
micheal vick
just read that micheal vick might be considered for your team.some might say he’s payed his debt,i say he is just a cold hateful cruel person ,that a short term in jail is not going to change.do what you will but remember what you get may be a lot worse than what you got.can you say pacman jones.
by turnbull58 on Jul 30, 2009 6:19 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
There is an article on Yahoo
that says
Link
Denver Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said "we’re not bringing him in right now," but acknowledged the team is always weighing its options.
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
by KaptainKirk on Jul 30, 2009 7:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






























