Time of Possesion: By Quarter

by Topher Doll on Nov 9, 2010 2:35 PM MST

There has been recent discussion about how the defense is often tired by the end of the game because they are on the field so often. I questioned this and decided to look it up. Our average time of possession per game is 29:22. That is 23rd in the league, or slightly below average. There are teams above us that have losing records (Cincinnati, Dallas, Detroit) and teams below us with winning records (Chicago, New England, Tennessee).

Time of possession isn't a key to victory but it sure helps. Because of the discussion, I wanted to break it down into quarters. I also took a look at each drive that started in the quarter and listed the totals. The averages are to the far right. The half where we receive is in bold, so for the Jacksonville game, we received in the 1st half, so the 1st quarter number is bold. Also included is the average length of time of our offensive drives and points allowed for each quarter.

This isn't an in-depth look at the material, just a presentation of the data and my thoughts.

The Table:

Game
Quarter	Jax	Seattle	Indy	Tenn.	Balt.	NY J	Oakland	SF	Average
1st	8:08	5:01	5:19	5:59	5:05	4:09	3:29	5:42	5:20
Drives	3	2	3	3	2	3	4	3	2.9
Avg. Drive Duration	2:45	2:50	1:40	2:00	2:50	1:20	0:55	1:50	1:35
Points Allowed	0	0	6	0	7	0	24	3	5.0
2nd	6:28	10:32	9:01	8:07	9:08	9:44	6:25	10:03	8:09
Drives	2	2	2	3	3	4	4	2	2.8
Avg. Drive Length	3:15	5:15	4:45	2:21	3:01	2:25	1:30	5:00	2:35
Points Allowed	7	0	7	10	10	7	14	0	6.9
3rd	8:28	11:22	6:15	10:55	4:58	9:55	5:04	4:34	7:45
Drives	3	2	3	3	2	4	4	3	3.0
Avg. Drive Length	2:45	5:40	3:02	3:15	2:30	2:20	1:15	1:20	2:15
Points Allowed	10	7	7	10	0	3	21	0	7.3
4th	7:22	10:32	9:17	10:09	4:28	7:49	6:24	6:07	7:45
Drives	2	3	3	4	3	3	2	5	3.1
Avg. Drive Length	3:25	3:30	3:02	2:20	1:20	2:33	3:12	1:20	2:15
Points Allowed	7	7	7	0	14	14	0	21	8.8
Total TOP	30:30	37:27	29:52	35:18	23:43	30:23	21:21	26:26	29:22
Total Drives	10	9	11	13	10	14	14	13	12

And due to popular demand, the chart without Oakland and Seattle is now up:

Game
Quarter	Jax	Indy	Tenn.	Balt.	NY J	SF	Average
1st	8:08	5:19	5:59	5:05	4:09	5:42	5:45
Drives	3	3	3	2	3	3	2.8
Avg. Drive Length	2:45	1:40	2:00	2:50	1:20	1:50	1:55
Points Allowed	0	6	0	7	0	3	2.7
2nd	6:28	9:01	8:07	9:08	9:44	10:03	8:35
Drives	2	2	3	3	4	2	2.7
Avg. Drive Length	3:15	4:45	2:21	3:01	2:25	5:00	2:45
Points Allowed	7	7	10	10	7	0	6.8
3rd	8:28	6:15	10:55	4:58	9:55	4:34	7:55
Drives	3	3	3	2	4	3	3.0
Avg. Drive Length	2:45	3:02	3:15	2:30	2:20	1:20	2:30
Points Allowed	10	7	10	0	3	0	5.0
4th	7:22	9:17	10:09	4:28	7:49	6:07	7:40
Drives	2	3	4	3	3	5	3.3
Avg. Drive Length	3:25	3:02	2:20	1:20	2:33	1:20	2:15
Points Allowed	7	7	0	14	14	21	10.5
Total TOP	30:30	29:52	35:18	23:43	30:23	26:26	29:22
Total Drives	10	11	13	10	14	13	11.8

The Break Down:

So overall it seemed we struggled in the 1st quarter, and by struggled I mean just plain don't do anything offensively. But the 2nd quarter was actually our best quarter, averaging over eight minutes. The 2nd quarter was successful because it had a longer average drive, and was more successful on average to score. At the second half, we controlled the clock pretty well, either tied or winning the TOP for both the 3rd and 4th quarters. It was interesting to note that we had longer drives, and scored more often in the second half then in the 1st. With similar number of drives, and a longer TOP, we see longer more successful drives in the 2nd half.

As for the defense, it was shocking how many points were allowed in the 4th quarter despite winning the TOP battle for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. The defense plays outstanding football in the 1st quarter despite a low TOP, but have a bit point increase as each quarter progresses despite having a much better TOP after the 1st quarter. We allowed more points in a shorter amount of time from the 2nd quarter onward.

Another note, we are much more successful at sustaining drives if we defer, receiving in the 1st half is a waste, but if we defer, the offense almost always scores early in the 2nd half.

After removing the Seattle and Oakland game, the offense seems even more successful, especially early, with a long TOP and longer drives. While it is still short, it isn't nearly as bad. The 1st quarter defense looks even better, allowing only about three points per 1st quarter, but look even worse in the 4th quarter, with little change to the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Taking out these two games makes both the offense and defense better, which is strange considering we won the Seattle game. The offense doesn't look nearly as bad early by removing those games and the defense looks better in the mid game.

Despite the fact most opposing teams are leading in the 4th quarter and we are even on TOP, we are allowing more then 10 points on average in the 4th quarter. In a time when the opponent is trying to run the clock out, they are still scoring. That's the defense's biggest weakness, and it's big. The offense is still doing terrible job in the 1st quarter, and needs to improve that. Doing that will give us more points, which is good obviously, but it doesn't seem to play a big part in late game collapses.

Well there's the numbers, I knew our 1st quarter TOP was bad but our other three quarters were very good, actually in the top 10 in the league. So to me TOP is a huge offensive problem in the 1st quarter, but for the following quarters, the offense is successful at staying on the field, and the defense becomes a liability in the mid to late game.

Poll

Who is the biggest problem with TOP?

Offense (Terrible starts)

7 votes

Defense (Mid to late game collapses)

3 votes

Both have things they need to improve

14 votes

24 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 8 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Both sides an issue

Thanks for creating this post. Very informative and to a degree, the stats play out as I expected. Our opponents average 9 or so minutes in TOP in the 1st quarter against our average of 5.5 minutes. That is unacceptable when you take into account the advanced age of the D. They bend, but don’t break in the 1st and then basically fold as the game goes on. The O needs greater consistency in the 1st quarter to allow the D to better pace itself as the game goes on. And the D, perhaps should look at attacking more in the early going rather than playing a react and bend strategy that keeps them on the field for a long period of time. Maybe we give up a big play and early score here and there, but maybe we get some freakin turnovers as well,,,, Smarter people than me looking at this problem, but what’s going on now is so obviously broken I think a change in philosophy is worth a shot. Thanks again for posting the data. Great stuff.

by Upstate Broncos on Nov 9, 2010 5:53 PM MST reply actions

Thanks for your thoughts

The D is one of the worse late game D’s in the league, but they do a fine job in the 1st quarter. Our offense is the exact opposite, playing terribly in the 1st quarter but playing very well in the other quarters. Both sides need to improve it seems.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 9, 2010 6:34 PM MST up reply actions

I would say the majority of improvement

comes down to the offense, specifically getting off on the right foot. By getting out to such slow starts, they are creating untenable situations for the defense. Consistently bad situations will result in a below average situational success rate, no matter how good or bad the defense is. The fact that the offense can screw the defense so badly in the first quarter with turnovers and bad field position is a testament to how well the defense is being prepared for tough situations. But over time teams will lose more of those battle than they win, so it is imperative that this offense pick up the slack and start executing in the first quarter.

The trickle down effect from early offensive efficacy could flip this team’s performance on its head.

Great perils have this beauty, that they bring to light the fraternity of strangers.

by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 10, 2010 2:12 PM MST up reply actions

Teams have won Super Bowls with much worse offenses

We need to improve out 1st quarter offense, but our defense is one of the worst in stopping scoring in the 2nd half. We have good TOP outside of the 1st quarter, so the defense really can’t blame fatigue, but improved 1st quarter offense would improve the defense.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 10, 2010 2:23 PM MST up reply actions

No doubt

I definitely feel that our defense has a built in ceiling (due to how we built it) so i think that is where I am coming from. The strength of this team is its offense (or it should be anyways, again, due to how the offense is built), so I feel a heavier burden should be placed on them.

Call it offensive bias or defensive handicap: I don’t have equal expectations for both sides of the ball, and I admit I might be being completely unfair to the defense with that attitude.

Great perils have this beauty, that they bring to light the fraternity of strangers.

by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 10, 2010 5:36 PM MST up reply actions

I suppose I agree, when you have one strong side

You place more expectation on them, it’s strange that just last season, our defense was the “strength” and now it’s the opposite. Age is a huge factor for our defense, both inexperience and our elderly players, and on our offensive line, with their inexperience.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 10, 2010 5:55 PM MST up reply actions

I rec's and tweeted, but this post makes me sick.

Not your thought, just the chart. Man I hope we see a better game this week…….

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

The artist formerly known as ZAPPA

by Tim Lynch on Nov 9, 2010 8:31 PM MST reply actions

We really are doing pretty well outside of 1st quarter TOP

And defensive sliding in the mid game. We are actually get in 1st quarter defense and the offensive sustains drives longer after that 1st quarter. Now if they could just support each other.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 9, 2010 11:22 PM MST up reply actions

I said Offense

because the Defense is better designed to play with a lead. If the Offense would only comply with that, the Defense would complement them.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.

by KaptainKirk on Nov 9, 2010 9:26 PM MST reply actions

I guess I can see that

But the best defenses seemed to win just fine without a great offense, heck some of the best defenses didn’t have any offense. I suppose either side can look to the other for more help.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 9, 2010 11:19 PM MST up reply actions

Hard to say what our defense is designed for

when we have zero pass rush. Overall though, I put more blame on the Offense because they SHOULD be able to better sustain drives and ultimately score in the early going thereby keeping a past its prime, and or talent short, D off the field. The healthy talent on this team is on the offensive side of the ball.

by Upstate Broncos on Nov 10, 2010 6:15 AM MST up reply actions

Chart Revision

I would consider adding a second chart without the Oak game or just removing it altogether (and perhaps without the Seattle game). We gave up the long score to Miller to start the game, but then the pick 6, D Thomas fumble, and Orton fumble (not sure what quarter that one happened in) makes the D look worse than it was in the first quarter. By the same token the O looks horrid because with a huge lead Oak just teed off on Orton. So far, Seattle and Oakland are the outliers of our season.

by Upstate Broncos on Nov 10, 2010 6:25 AM MST reply actions

You must understand how the chart is meant to be read

And I’m not changing a chart or removing history just because it is upsetting. As you notice, in the Oakland game, we have four 1st quarter drives that cover 3:29, that shows that each drive was very short, as also noted by the duration of each drive listed below that, the blame is obviously on the offense there. But the rest of the game is pretty balanced in it’s blame, Oakland scored quickly and often, sustaining long drives easily, while the offense struggled to score. The Oakland game was an outlier, but you don’t change your data because of that. Also not sure why I’d remove the Seattle game besides that it showed key 1st quarter offensive struggles and similar late game defensive give, which is seen throughout the season.

Thanks for your thoughts though. This table isn’t a see-all or know-all about the game, it deals with how successful the offense is at sustaining drives and covers the ability of the defense to stop opponents from scoring.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 10, 2010 9:24 AM MST up reply actions

I understand the chart

And the data in it (including the Oakland game) is not upsetting….at least not as much as it would have been a few weeks ago. The rationale behind removing those two games is to see a “normalized” view of the team’s performance when you take out the best game of the year and the worst game of the year. I thought it would be interesting to see how the results compare to the full slate you have shown above. It might not significantly swing the needle one way or the other, but it is a valid way to view the data set and might yield interesting findings and spur more discussion. Your post though. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to create this in the first place.

by Upstate Broncos on Nov 10, 2010 12:06 PM MST up reply actions

I agree with your point Upstate

I wouldn’t change the existing chart, but I too would like to see this same data set “normalized” by throwing out the “high/low”. Both ways of looking at the data would be valuable, especially side by side, since I am a strong believer that the Raiders game represented an outlier in just about every known football sense. I listen to pundits talking about the raiders aggregate statistics over the last three games, and I know that normalizing that data would create much more reasonable expectations for fans going forward, since the Raiders won’t be getting anymore games like the broncos game this year, perhaps even longer, since a first quarter sequence like that is very, very rare. Singletary said he had never seen anything like it, in fact, and that dude has seen a lot of good football.

Great perils have this beauty, that they bring to light the fraternity of strangers.

by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 10, 2010 2:19 PM MST up reply actions

Your wish is my command

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Nov 10, 2010 2:25 PM MST up reply actions

THANKS! and one last request..........

Points scored by Denver under both scenarios you’re showing in the charts. While not the complete picture, this would definitely help. Also, I would take a look at "mudagoose"s post from today. I think he/she is on the exact same path you’re on with this one (without the pretty charts). The two of you should collaborate and repost a combination of eachother’s work. BTW, I’m inclined to think our problems are more on the Offensive side than the D, but will reserve final judgement until if/when you post our scoring stats. Great work as always!

by Upstate Broncos on Nov 11, 2010 6:53 AM MST up reply actions