Time to Bid Brandon Adieu
I've been intrigued by all of the discussion surrounding Brandon Marshall of late. I must admit, I was one of those who expected Brandon to be handed his walking papers after his behavior during OTA's and Training Camp. I would not have been surprised to see such happen, and given his off-field baggage, I would not have been disappointed to see him go.
I was surprised to see Josh McDaniels deal with Marshall by benching him and then working him back into the offense. Bowlen more or less promised that if Marshall performed, he would be paid. Marshall responded to the situation by performing. Then between weeks 16 & 17, Brandon seemed to revert to form, leading to a second benching. Rumors immediately began to fly after he not only cleaned out his locker but also took down his nameplate. Most folks who have insight into the way these things work have assumed that Marshall will be gone once Free Agency begins. Again I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Through all of this I have come to a personal conclusion: the Broncos need to strike a deal for Brandon -- but not for the reasons that most people would advocate such a move. My conclusion has nothing to do with Marshall's off-field issues, his on-field play, his benchings, nor any of the popular views.
What it is based on will come after the jump.
Marshall probably will be shopped after he finished the season in McDaniels' doghouse. Imagining the Broncos' passing offense without Marshall is a scary proposition, considering Denver's offense for most of the second half of the season was throwing to Marshall repeatedly.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/report/DEN/12857841/broncos-report-strategy-and-personnel
The latter part of that quote caught my attention, so I did a bit of research on the Broncos receiving stats in 2009. What I found startled me:
1)Brandon Marshall played in 15 games in 2009.
2)In games where Marshall was targeted 7 times or less, the Broncos went 5-0.
3)In games where Marshall was targeted 8 times or more, Denver went 3-7.
The above statistics were startling enough, but there was more:
4)In the wins:
Marshall was targeted 25% of the time.
Marshall had 27% of the receptions.
Marshall amassed 27% of the receiving yards.
Marshall had an average/catch of 12.2 yards. The other receivers, as a group, had an average/catch of 12.0 yards.
Marshall had 42% of the receiving touchdowns.
The remaining targets, receptions, etc. were spread among an average of 7 other receivers.
In the 8 wins, the ball was spread around a fair amount. In the losses, this change somewhat:
5)In the losses:
Marshall was targeted 37% of the time (+10% from the wins).
Marshall had 39% of the receptions (+12% from the wins).
Marshall amassed 40% of the receiving yards (+13% from the wins).
Marshall had an average/catch of 10.3 yards (-1.9 yards/catch from the wins). The other receivers, as a group, had an average/catch of 9.6 yards (-2.4 yards/catch from the wins).
Marshall had 63% of the receiving touchdowns (+19% from the wins). But he did not score any more touchdowns in the losses than he did in the wins.
Now I realize that it can be argued that Marshall was targeted more because the other receivers weren't stepping up their games. And certainly, their drop in average/catch would certainly support such a view.
But I can't help but return time and again to the first statistic I shared: When Marshall was targeted 7 or less times, Denver went 5-0 while when he was targeted 8 or more times, the Broncos went 3-7.
Now add in the fact that the Marshall-less receiving corp ran up 431 receiving yards in the final game (against an admittedly poor secondary) and I find myself led to the conclusion that as the season wore on, the passing offense became more and more focused on getting the ball to Brandon. Whether that was by design, by quarterback preference or by other receivers' shortcomings, the fact remains that more of the passing targets went to Marshall. Yet his average/catch dropped, and he did not score any more touchdowns than he did with fewer touches.
This is what has led me to the conclusion that our offense may well be better off when it's forced to spread the ball around a bit more, rather than thinking that it can be chucked up into space near Brandon and he'll just jump up and get it.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
74 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great stats here
Not that Brandon isn’t a great player, and you acknowledge that, but when your offensive attack becomes one dimensional, the wins are far less frequent.
Agreed
Our run game was so poor, we were more or less one-dimensional. When the passing game becomes one-dimensional also, your’e in deep doo-doo.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 29, 2010 9:52 PM MST up reply actions
These stats are interesting and I think very relevant.
However, Brandon Marshall does not force a QB to throw at him. With that said, maybe he is a cancer on the sidelines in the same vein as T.O. was.
Did you see that video on nfl.com when he was miked up?
Supports this theory in my opinion.
I love what Brandon can do but if I was Orton, I wouldn’t want to have to come off the field and get that in my ear. He’s got other options out there and ultimately where he passes should be up to him.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Jan 29, 2010 11:29 PM MST up reply actions
no, I missed that video
do you have a link by any chance?
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 29, 2010 11:37 PM MST up reply actions
This is it
http://www.nfl.com/videos/denver-broncos/09000d5d81535842/Sound-FX-Brandon-Marshall
Be interesting to see other people’s take. I watched it again and maybe i’m a bit harsh. That’s likely to be the highlights so he’s probably not like that all game.
If he is then it’d get a bit much after a while…
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Jan 30, 2010 12:26 AM MST up reply actions
My take after watching it
Marshall was dubbed Baby TO early because of his physical attributes. Now though, he appears to be more and more of a TO in all respects. Broncos should get whatever they can for him while there is some getting to be gotten. TO left San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Dallas without those teams getting anything in return.
Take it easy. But take it. Studs Terkel
good point
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 1:24 PM MST up reply actions
That's something that worries me
I get this odd feeling that McDaniels see Marshall as a version of Randy Moss, who became an important part of the Patriots offense, while in reality, Marshall may be more like Owens than Moss.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
These stats don't tell the right story.
Pinning these losses on Marshall due to the stats isn’t accurate. There are other factors at play. Stats can be misleading and used to illustrate a point but they don’t tell the whole story. Consider this.
a) during those 5 wins how was our defense holding against the pass and run?
b) how about during those losses?
c) were we playing from behind and forced to throw the ball more in order to play catch up?
d) how was our running game affecting the need to throw constantly (maybe we couldn’t get first downs)?
My opinion is that our defense fell apart causing us to have to throw more. Marshall was probably targeted more because he was getting open more frequently in those “must pass” games. Can’t contribute the losses to Brandon. I am for trading the guy if the need arises based strictly on his attitude but I definitely don’t think BM was the reason we faltered down the stretch. Good research but I don’t think it tells the right story.
by BroncoMath101 on Jan 29, 2010 10:36 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough, and I'm inclined to agree with you
I agree totally with the view that the Broncos win & lose as a team — all three units (offense, defense, and special teams) contribute to whether or not we win.
I was simply responding to the quote on CBSSports.com about how our offense in the 2nd half of the season consisted mainly of throwing to Marshall. I actually anticipated finding statistics that would dispute that viewpoint and was startled to see the targets in the wins vs the targets in the losses.
I wasn’t trying to pin the losses solely on Marshall. Rather, I walked away from this look feeling that perhaps Marshall is not as vital to the Denver offense as some folks tend to believe.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 29, 2010 10:50 PM MST up reply actions
Point taken and I agree with you
that he isn’t as vital to our offense as some think.
by BroncoMath101 on Jan 30, 2010 6:55 PM MST up reply actions
I tend to agree with you here...with one exception.
And that exception scares the bejeezus out of me.
If the Broncos had not had Brandon Marshall in the last 9 games…would the other receivers have stepped up? Or would they have stayed as invisible and ordinary as they were the rest of the year. Were the other receivers just game planned out, or were they incapable of making plays?
Gaffney stepped up admirably against the woeful Chiefs…would he have had the same numbers against Indy? Pittsburgh? San Diego? I don’t know the answer, but I think we are gonna find out.
I can agree with that
The problem is that we’re facing a chicken or the egg question here.
Marshall was targeted at a rate of almost 2-to-1 over anyone else. The question is: Was he targeted that much because the other guys weren’t stepping up their game, or are the other guys’ numbers low because Marshall was targeted so much?
My suspicion is that it is a little bit of both, with the weight falling a little more on the side of Marshall being focused on a bit too much — whether due to play-calling, QB preference, game situation, etc.
What concerns me is the pattern that appeared that showed the more Marshall was targeted, the lower his actual production became; for example, when his targets were around 7, his yards/catch was around 12 & the other receivers, even though they had fewer targets, had the same yards/catch at 12. When Marshall’s targets went up, his yards/catch dropped to 10.3, and the rest of the receiving corp dropped to under 10.
I’ll be posting a player-by-player look at this issue sometime this week, to see what other patterns can be detected.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Feb 1, 2010 10:37 AM MST up reply actions
I wouldn't be too concerned about that...
As was noted elsewhere on this thread (Im not sure who so I can’t give credit) the more receptions you get, the more the other team focuses on you and the less productive you are.
If you are the only weapon, and the other teams know it…your average is gonna go down.
something to think about
I’ve heard the “Gaff vs. Chefs” worry a couple of times, but consider that Flowers and Carr are one of the best DB tandems in the league. it is no small feat to perform well against them, and I doubt that many chief fans would think that their secondary was a weak link…
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 1, 2010 5:26 PM MST up reply actions
On the other hand...
It IS fair to point out that teams are more effective on offense when they don’t have to rely on one receiver. The stats above would seem to indicate this.
Also, Royal’s production has been down, but (then again) Marshall has been getting targeted so much.
I think it is fair to say that the heavy passes to Marshall don’t prove that Marshall is costing us games. However, BShrout’s point is correct. Teams are better off spreading the ball around. This is an old addage in football, and BShrout has a decent set of stats to back up this claim.
Formerly known as Hoosierteacher or just HT.
"I presume that all of you here think me worthy of pity. But Great God, when I think I was on the point of doing nothing, I consider myself worthy of envy." Jean Valjean, Hugo's Les Miserables
by Steve Nichols on Jan 30, 2010 11:55 AM MST up reply actions
Love the sig!
But you knew that… ;)
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 30, 2010 12:07 PM MST up reply actions
I just re-watched my favorite version...
(which stars Richard Jordan).
Take a look at the scene! (I also love the music)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25-dJt7O-0
Formerly known as Hoosierteacher or just HT.
"I presume that all of you here think me worthy of pity. But Great God, when I think I was on the point of doing nothing, I consider myself worthy of envy." Jean Valjean, Hugo's Les Miserables
by Steve Nichols on Jan 30, 2010 12:49 PM MST up reply actions
Brilliant book and movies
I adore multiple versions – thanks for letting me see that scene again. That’s one of the best
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
Thanks, Steve
What I’m spending my offseason doing — while others are preparing mock drafts and the like — is looking back at 2009 to see if I can discern patterns that contributed to our slide in the last 10 games.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 1:26 PM MST up reply actions
Its a great idea BShrout
I’m as into the draft as anyone, but now that I feel I have my mind around the juniors, I’ve decided to ease up a bit and take a closer look at what we know from last year. We really haven’t gone in depth on looking at our existing players from top to bottom yet. Perhaps it was too much of a letdown coming from 6-0 to where we are now, or maybe we just really have a draft savvy crowd, but we seem to really be leaping before we look in some ways…
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 30, 2010 3:33 PM MST up reply actions
I agree JB
You have to know where you came from to better understand where you want to go.
One of the things that caught my eye early on was that in the 1st half of the season, the linebackers & D-line were making the majority of the tackles, as the season wore on, more and more of the tackles were being made by the defensive backfield. Participating in Upon Further Review added in some insights into how our O-line was getting blown off the line of scrimmage in many instances.
Plus, I have absolutely no acumen for analyzing the draft. :)
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 4:19 PM MST up reply actions
totally agree about good teams spreading the ball around
Just look at teams like the colts or saints. They spread the ball around to everyone. If you get open, you’ll get it. We shouldn’t need to force the ball into Brandon. I’m not sure if that is a product of play calling or just that maybe Brandon is the only one who consistently got open. I know Eddie had troubles this year getting consistently open.
by BroncoMath101 on Jan 30, 2010 6:57 PM MST up reply actions
From what I saw
It was a combination of things: play-calling, poor line play, Royal and others not getting open consistently, and Orton being too quick to look for Marshall.
I think Marshall came to be viewed as the first option and was way too relied on.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 7:12 PM MST up reply actions
While BM is a great player..
…his legend seems to grow in some circles with each passing day. I’m glad somebody took the time to put him in more realistic perspective. I’ll hate to see his talent go, but I also have trouble forgetting that he never seems to live up to his YaC hype— although he’s a heck of a dancer— and 10-some per catch is hardly legend making material. Away from MHR (and probably Denver fan sites in general) he’s viewed as post-up possession receiver that’s not nearly worth the bounty everybody seems to anticipate around here.
I can’t help but to believe that if Marshall is, in fact, dealt, the return package is going to be underwhelming (probably a solid vet) and severely disappointing to those that see draft riches falling out of the sky. His real production alone doesn’t match the hype, and when you throw in his off field difficulties, you’re not even in the same universe as a Larry Fitzgerald.
I still see Denver tendering him, and BM finding no takers. Heck, he’s arguably not even the best WR on the CBA market this year— with the far more explosive V. Jackson and M. Austin possibly competing for potential suitors. That leaves a buyer’s market and I don’t see Denver being so disenfranchised with him that they’ll just give him away.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 29, 2010 11:02 PM MST reply actions
I have a feeling you are correct:
I can’t help but to believe that if Marshall is, in fact, dealt, the return package is going to be underwhelming
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 29, 2010 11:36 PM MST up reply actions
Miles Austin is for sure the best RFA WR out there but I have to believe the Cowboys
will try to get a long term deal done with him. I can’t see them letting him go for draft picks. If they do tender him I would imagine they are prepared to match any offer for him. V-jack i’m not so sure about.
I can easily see a team spending a 1st and 3rd on Marshall. Most of the good teams try to build through the draft but there are some poorly run teams out there who will splurge on a player. Maybe Buffalo or Tampa Bay (even though they don’t have a first).
by BroncoMath101 on Jan 30, 2010 7:03 PM MST up reply actions
I think you could well be right
though I must admit that the more I see the MSM portraying Marshall as a “possession” receiver, the less confident I am that we’ll get a good deal for him.
Which is one of the reasons, I find myself wondering if McDaniels benched him in the hopes that he can “rehabilitate” Marshall ala Randy Moss.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 7:14 PM MST up reply actions
I don't think HC's and GM's care what type of receiver the media calls him
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
V. Jackson will probably be kept in SD
Despite his 2nd DUI, he’s also the team’s best receiver by far. Age has permitted him to surpass A. Gates, IMO. Like Marshall, he is a danger with his legal issues (although Marshall is much more so, historically). Jackson has now been cited for driving with expired plates and no license while on probation for his second DUI – I guess he and Marshall have a lot in common….
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
The only real difference...
…is the 6.1 yards per catch advantage that Jackson held this year (4.9 career advantage). I’m just saying— if both are tendered— Jackson might look more appealing to any respective suitor. His league status is less precarious and he has more efficient (arguably) statistics.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 31, 2010 8:26 PM MST up reply actions
Wouldn't he be looking at a 1-4 game suspension for the second DUI,
especially if the other two tickets come up negatively? I’m just curious – I don’t really have an opinion on Goodell’s approach.
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
I think the speculation is that he'll get at least one...
…game (VJ). But if Brandon Marshall were to get into any sort of trouble, it could be open-ended.
Again, I have no beef with Brandon Marshall. I’d mostly rather see him stay a Denver Bronco (although there are some compelling arguments against). I just don’t think he is in the driver’s seat when it comes to him getting the money his talent and production probably deserves. Besides all the off field stuff, Bshrout isn’t the only person that’s going to a statistical analysis of him and conclude that maybe he isn’t the transcendent game changer he appears to be superficially. I’m sure a lot of personnel departments have already wrestled with that monkey. I think the 1-3 scenario and some of these anticipated trades are pie-in-the-sky. There’s a huge difference between the JC situation and the BM situation.
Judging by the most recent Marshall comments, it might not be a reach to suggest that he has figured this out himself.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 31, 2010 10:08 PM MST up reply actions
I agree - probably at least one on the DUI
His problem might be if Goodell takes into account the two tickets – driving without a valid license and driving with expired tags – while on probation (for the 1st DUI, I believe). It might start to add up.
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
Gotta disagree
Marshall’s younger and more consistent (even in a new system) than Williams, Moss, and Galloway were when they were traded. We will get more for Marshall than they did in those trades. Marshall proved he’s consistently good enough to get open and catch 110 balls for 1100+ yards even in with a new QB, HC, system and scheme. That brings securtiy and all but guarantees a team that he can do it with their team.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Good point....
Someone will bite on him. He put together quite a highlight reel this season. Making all those cowboys miss, and all those 1 handed catches in and after the Giants game have to excite owners like ….. hmmmm….. Al Davis. Either way, I think Dever still has the leverage. If we don’t get what we want for him, he’s in the same boat as last year: at the mercy of his cance to perform.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
The thing is...
…is there seems to be some evidence that BM isn’t a game changer. He wows everybody with the occasional incredible catch or long run, but more often he runs laterally and leaves yards on the field, and the routes he excel’s at (hooks, digs, etc) leave him stationary, where he lacks the burst to then pull away from defenders. His big games, more often than not, result in losses. This was true with Cutler, too. His YpC as a starter has never exceeded 13 per game, and has gone down at least a yard each season since. That’s not all on QB, scheme, et al— its partly on D’s figuring out how to contain him— which isn’t hard when a guy doesn’t make a lot of plays on the move or with his back to the QB. Tackle well, mitigate BM. It doesn’t help him that Gaffney hung 200 yards receiving replacing him against KC, as it presents the argument that even a journeyman can be uberproductive in that role in the McD scheme.
There is no doubt that he is productive (just moving the chains adds up) and would be an asset to most teams— but he wants game changer money. Coupled with CBA uncertainty, some questionable locker room dynamics, and the fact that he has no screw-up rope left with the league makes him far more appealing in Denver than anywhere else.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 31, 2010 9:44 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I've gone back and forth on Marshall
and have reached a point of indifference. I don’t really care whether he stays or goes and trust coach to make the right call. It’s worth noting though, that we won’t get anything for him if we keep him under tender or franchise. He should be unrestricted next year, provided that a new CBA gets done. And he’ll be walking out of Denver for nothing.
I get your point about not being a game changer, but he’s still more of one than Williams or Galloway when they were traded. So I guess we’ll just have to disagree on what trade value he fetches.
Thanks for the comment
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
I hope everybody is right.
I would be in agreement without the CBA environment, probably. I just think its a wierd year, and coupled with BM’s bad intangibles, it doesn’t bode well on the trade value front.
If Denver wants to be rid of him, lets hope I have to eat my words.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 31, 2010 10:43 AM MST up reply actions
Good points B
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
winning teams tend to run more and losting teams tend to throw more....
that seems likely an explanation in why Marshall has more catches in the losses. On top of that, Orton has a real problem with spreading the ball around. Look no further then when Marshall was out the last game, Gaffney was targeted a whole bunch and had several catches. It is Orton that needs to spread the ball around. It seems that it wasn’t just that only Marshall was capable of getting open……Gaffney was able to get open in the last game, I’m guessing he was probably getting open in the other games. I totally agree it is about spreading the ball around, that seems to be an issue that Orton and/or McD need to work out. I
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
I don't see anything wrong with that argument
I saw many instances wherein receivers were slow off the line – that was one criticism of Royal’s play, he didn’t seem to be able to get away from press coverage at the line.
And I would agree with the statement that it is primarily Orton’s responsibility to spread the ball around more.
What I found startling was that the more he was targeted, the lower his reception percentage dropped (68% vs 64%), and the lower his yards per catch fell (12.2 vs 10.3).
I’m really not trying to bash Marshall, nor blame our losses on him alone. It simply seems to me that the more the Broncos focused on Marshall, his production suffered. Pretty much, IMHO, reinforces the evaluation of him in other forums as a possession receiver rather than a true deep threat.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 5:15 PM MST up reply actions
dang, left out one sentence
But while he’s here, I think there’s a tendency to want to lean on him as the primary threat. Thus, my contention that perhaps, the offense would be better served by moving him on — something which he has stated on numerous occasions that he wants.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 5:16 PM MST up reply actions
For the yard difference....
it could be that he has less yards per catch because the opposing team can figure out they are throwing to Marshall so they are there to tackle quicker and even that when the other team knows we are throwing, they tended to get to Orton pretty fast meaning quicker, shorter routes.
I’m not sure I’m of a fan of taking away the best and favorite toy just because the kid is not playing enough with his other toys (sorry about the terrible analogy).
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
Very good point
And, to be frank, I’m not convinced that Marshall’s going to end up on the chopping block (see my comment above about McDaniels maybe trying to rehabilitate Marshall).
I think Marshall can be a factor on the field and would hate to see Denver lose that. I was just trying to point out that Marshall appeared to be most effective when he was targeted 6-7 times per game as opposed to when he’s targeted 8+ times — and I think it’s because of what you pointed out: they are quicker to close on Marshall & Orton having less time to throw.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 7:16 PM MST up reply actions
Im gonna have to disagree here...the numbers don't support that the D was getting to Orton fast.
If you check the stats, the Broncos O-line was ranked 16th in sacks allowed, pretty middle of the road at 34. If you look at the QB hits number though, you see that we were ranked 8th with only 62.
This tells me that the defense really wasn’t getting to Orton that often, he just didn’t have the escape ability to avoid the sack.
This isn’t to say that the O-Line couldn’t play better, but they certainly didn’t limit what we could do on Offense.
I'm always so hard on Orton....
that I thought I would give him a break for this post, but his pocket presence and escapability need to be improved.
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
You bring up good points
However, I would like to point out that the O-line play did affect what we could do on offense. QB Hits & Sacks equaled 96 for Denver, which represents 17% of Denver’s passing plays. Some of that falls on Orton and some of it falls on the line which was simply overrun on some passing plays.
Add in that our RBs were tackled for losses 36 times (or 10% of our rushing plays) and that reflects poorly on the O-line.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Feb 1, 2010 11:56 AM MST up reply actions
Looking at a couple of other teams
Ind & NE (because Manning & Brady are not viewed as being tremendously mobile QBs)
Ind had RB’s tackled for loss 43 (12%) times, and Manning was sacked/hit 57 (9%) times.
NE had RBs tackled for loss 35 (8%) times, and Brady was sacked/hit 78 (13%) times.
One team that had an O-line that was supposedly worse than ours and had a vastly more mobile QB posted these stats:
RBs tackled for loss 34 (9%) times.
QB sacked/hit 114 (20%) times.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Feb 1, 2010 12:15 PM MST up reply actions
BS - As I said, the O-line could have played better...
My point was that the O-Line was not significantly worse than any other O-Line in the league and the stats for Hits vs Sacks indicate that Orton and his limited mobility had a lot to do with the sack number being so high.
Im working on a Orton season highlight video and Orton prior to the injury showed good escapability.
Also every team and QB gets pressure from the edges but not many get pressured up the middle like were. When you are operating from the shotgun your QB must be able to step up you cannot have the center being pushed back into the QB. The tackles are operating under the assumption that they can send there guys wide and that the QB can step up to avoid the rush . Orton on far too many occasions could not step far enough up and ended up going horizontal to the LOS and got caught by the end .
Sorry...the numbers just aren't there to support that.
I assume that you are placing the blame with the Center and Guards for Orton’s inability to step up into the pocket. If you look at the numbers, you see a very efficient line that had very few Holds and Sacks.
Casey Weigman – 2 holding penalties, 2 sacks
Ben Hamilton – 4 holding, 3 sacks (8 games)
Chris Kuper – 2 holds, 5 sacks
Russ Hochstein – 0 holds, 1.5 sacks (10 games)
Now lets compare those numbers to some of the better players in the league at those positions.
G Steve Hutchinson (Minn) – 1 hold, 3.5 sacks
G Jahri Evans (NO) -3 hold, 2 sacks
G Chris Snee (NYG) – 2 holds, 4 sacks
C Andre Gurode (Dal) – 4 holds, 2 sacks
C Nick Mangold (NYJ) – 2 holds, 2 sacks
C Jason Brown (StL) – 0 holds, 4.5 sacks
Holds and Sacks are pretty indicative of Pass Blocking Quality because a good lineman will hold the opponent rather than let him get to his QB. As you can see, our ’09 line measures pretty favorably with some of the best players in the NFL in regards to this.
Orton did not face that much pressure this year. Middle of the pack on sacks, top 10 on hits. It wasn’t the Broncos best Pass Blocking performance, but it was also not the cause of our problems.
As for Orton’s escape ability, I didn’t see any before or after the injury. The man is a statue in the pocket with a slow release and he requires 5-7 seconds to do anything with the ball. That is not a knock on him, it is just what he is. Dan Marino was a statue in the pocket, he just had a ridiculously fast release and uncanny accuracy that kept him from getting sacked.
Quick question miner00
You given some great stats on individual linemen.
How did the other interior linemen of each player’s line do in those same stats?
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Feb 2, 2010 10:26 AM MST up reply actions
That is a good question...
I don’t have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but here is a look at the New York Jets who are credited with having a pretty darned good running game O-Line and the New England Patriots who have a pretty good passing offense. As you can see, these are pretty similar to the performance that we see in pass protection for the Broncos O-Line.
NY Jets O-Line (running based offense)
Fergusen – 2 holds, 8 sacks
Faneca – 1 holds, 6.5 sacks
Mangold – 2 holds, 2 sacks
Moore -0 holds, 0.5 sacks
Woody – 0 holds, 2.5 sacks
New England O-Line (Passing based Offense)
Light- 1 hold, 2 sacks (11games)
Mankins 3 hold, 1 sack
Koppen – 1 hold, 1.5 sacks
Neal 1 hold, 3 sacks (12 games)
Kaczur- o holds, 4.5 sacks
If you would like to reconstruct the numbers for your favorite team, try going here…
http://sports.cbs2chicago.com/fb/findplayer.asp?type=position&position=91
Thanks, Miner
You struck a note of curiosity for me. I’m currently up to my eyes in two different research projects that I want to post on MHR, and so lacked the time to look up the data for myself.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
I'd be interested to see the numbers from our entire receiving corps, including Marshall.
I have a hunch that you may find the trend of lack of production to be a system-wide symptom of play calling/gametime conditions.
Simply singling out Marshall shows that he trends a certain way while the entire offense might trend the same way.
In any case, this is insightful, interesting stuff, and I appreciate you work in putting it together. It’ll be interesting to see the Marshall saga play out.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Spreading the ball
I find thjis one odd and I wonder if anyone did some research (My hands aren’t going to let me this week). One of the constant praises of Orton for a while was that he spread the ball to so many. Did that change greatly?
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
I'm working on a comparison of the WRs
Orton utilized from 6 to 8 different receivers per game.
What became something of a trend was to target Marshall more and more, particularly during or losses — which, IMHO, had the net result of making our passing offense rather one dimensional.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 31, 2010 1:41 PM MST up reply actions
I agree with you but it seemed that in a lot of games Orton didn't have much time to throw.
That may just be my perception but maybe he focused on his first read or two because of a collapsing pocket?
by BroncoMath101 on Jan 30, 2010 7:05 PM MST up reply actions
If that is the case.....
and it very well could be, then I think McD needs to run more plays where Marshall isn’t the first read.
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
Agreed
As Bonaire pointed out, the smaller amount of time to throw, meant shorter, quicker routes, which would definitely impact both the number of passes thrown and the yards per catch.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 30, 2010 7:17 PM MST up reply actions
The assumption in the numbers is that we used the same packages every game and thus everyone was on the field the same number of reps but I think that is wrong
There was a ton of factors that played into Marshall being targeted so much by orton .
Royal was terrible and yet Josh kept him in on more snaps then he should over gaffney who outplayed Royal all season.
Orton lost confidence in Royal but his confidence in Gaffney was just as strong as his confidence in Marshall and you could add Stoke in there as well. But Gaffney was splitting snaps with Royal while Stoke hardly played and Scheff was in and out of the packages so who was the ball not being spread around to ?
No one found it odd how Gaffney would come in and immediately get opn 20 yards down the field ?
Or that Lloyd came in against Philly and Orton immediately able to find him as well. The only person who had trouble in the passing game was Eddie and because he was playing the second most snaps behind Marshall but didnt have the Qbs confidence that was the major lag spot in the passing game .
Most teams play the receivers who the QB has confidence in and we essentially forced Eddie onto Orton this season . Lets hope Eddie can win backs Ortons confidence next season.
I dont want Brandon to go but I would understand if he was dealt . I think you also have to look at that he played a role similar to Welkers role for us . No one says Brady is targeting Welker too much . I think in this offense that we saw in Marshall someone just learning the offense but is just a great receiver underneath finding holes and getting off the line .
I think we saw in Gaffney against the chiefs a player who knows every play and every receiver position in the playbook so he was able to be just moved around and still be equally effective. If we could find two more receivers that could pick up the playbook as well as gaffney where all 3 could lineup anywhere it would really open up this offensive passing attack
I think you have great points
There are a lot of variables that went into why the numbers came up the way they did not only for Marshall, but for all of the receivers.
This post was a response to a quote by a CBS writer who portrayed the Denver offense as passing mostly to Marshall. I thought that sounded odd and took a look. That’s when the oddball pattern of Marshall’s targets to team record appeared to me. The only real points that I drew from the pattern was that the Broncos & Marshall were both more successful when the ball was spread around more, than when Marshall became the overwhelming target. We were most successful and Marshall was most productive when he was receiving about 25% of the targets in a game.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 31, 2010 5:23 AM MST up reply actions
I think the story here is that Marshall had more catches and yardage per game
once he put his head down and learned the system. And that just happened to be when we were running the ball better, stopping opposing offenses and winning games.
Marshall was being a punk, not learning the playbook, punting balls away and just not learning the playbook or reaaly creating a repore with Orton. After his suspension, he slowly got more involved in the game plans. But he didn’t even start two of the first three games and averaged 55 yards and less than five catches in the first six games. He averaged 8 catches and 88 yards per game after the by-week, which coincidentally just happened to be the same break point in which we started losing games, our defense stopped defending as well, and our running game took a slide when we had injuries on the line.
I obviously agree that the ball should be spread around more, but that’s on Orton and the coaching game plan, not Marshall.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Opps
And that just happened to be when we were WERE NOT running the ball better, stopping opposing offenses and winning games.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
I'd agree that Marshall's approach factored in
I’d also agree that not spreading the ball around falls mainly on Orton.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 31, 2010 7:52 AM MST up reply actions
I dont necessarily put it on Orton....
I put it on the ability of receivers to get open. Eddie could not get open if he was the only player on the field this year, and he was in MOST packages, so by default, Orton checked down to the WR with the most of chance of making a catch, and NOT creating a turnover. That would be Marshall who is a great possession receiver and whose body shields the ball from turn overs.
The routes ran by the other guys were a bit high risk, and required MORE time that our O line could not give Orton. Marshall’s success was predicated ob him being the safety valve on the majority of plays due to a variety of factors. It is not as simple as placing the requirement of spreading the ball at Orton’s feet…..it requires a lot of things to happen right first!
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 Jan 31, 2010 9:12 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
-Richee
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
Meant for Boydy
-Richee
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
by BroncoSense72 on Jan 31, 2010 11:21 AM MST up reply actions
ditto your comment
trust boydy to keep us all on the straight & narrow
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jan 31, 2010 1:42 PM MST up reply actions

by 



































