Bang Your Head - Sanity in the Marshall, Dumervil, and Scheffler Debate
Well I'm a stat-grinder, play-cruncher.
Now can we really keep our wide receiver?
Got no brains, he's insane.
McDaniels says that he's one big pain.
Brandon's like a laser, a 6-streamin' razor
He's got a mouth like an alligator.
But I want it louder. Sack power
Should we keep Elvis when it strikes the hour?
There are a lot of opinions on Brandon Marshall, Elvis Dumervil, and Tony Scheffler these days. Despite Marshall's verbal group hug during the Pro Bowl, the prevailing wisdom is still that the Broncos are going to look to trade (after tender offers) both Marshall and Scheffler, while making their best effort to retain the man-child sack leader in the NFL.
But is this the right strategy?
Follow me after the jump and you'll find out once and for all. For those that prefer the musical stylings of Quiet Riot, break out your spandex, hair spray, eyeliner, and click here.
If you survived the jump, congrats. You're about to enter a world that most fans simply never bother with. You see, the simple answer to the Marshall, Dumervil, and Scheffler situations is to look at numbers of catches, numbers of sacks, and in the case of Marshall, the number of times he opens and closes his mouth, and go with your gut.
And you know what? There's no problem with it. Often our first instincts are right. So when you had a physical reaction to the drafting of Maurice Clarett or the signing of Dale Carter, you were spot on. You didn't need stats or independent information. You simply knew.
The current situation, however, presents a unique challenge. Here we have three players. The Broncos have to decide who of the three they want to keep, while trying to balance these contracts with value in other areas of need. All three players have produced (on the surface) at very high levels. One of them, Scheffler, is presumed to be a bad fit for this offense. The other is, for better or worse, the poster child for what some refer to as the modern athlete--selfish, petulant, and narrowly focused on individual accomplishments. The last has generally been a good soldier--quiet, focused, and constantly learning.
So who stays and who goes? To answer this question, we need to get to first understand the value of an individual player in the context of a common denominator with which we can compare all players. We can do this through expected points values.
Points, Not Catches
In order to ascertain the value of each player, I recently charted every single offensive play from the 2009 Denver Broncos. But even more head-bangingly delicious, I scored every single play with an expected points value. That's right. I can tell you what every play last year was worth, from the Stokley miracle touchdown (7.837 points) to Orton's pick-six interception against the Steelers (-8.067 points).
Perhaps an example of how this works would be both fun and enlightening. Ever wonder how many points Richard Seymour's hair pulling of Ryan Clady's bad-to-the-bone locks cost the Raiders? Of course you did. Let's walk through it. Here is the simple description of the play from the NFL's official gamebook:
2-7-OAK 30 (12:04) (Shotgun) 8-K.Orton pass short middle to 10-J.Gaffney to OAK 28 for 2 yards (99-G.Ellis).
PENALTY on OAK-92-R.Seymour, Unnecessary Roughness, 14 yards, enforced at OAK 28.
Without the penalty, the Broncos would have been facing a 3rd-and-5 at the Oakland 28-yard line. The expected points value of this down and distance would have been 2.882 points. However, with the penalty, the Broncos were now facing a 1st-and-10 from the Oakland 14-yard line. The expected points value of this down and distance was 4.922 points. The differential between the two states? 2.04 points. Thanks, Mr. Seymour! You just cost your team the equivalent of a safety. It's too bad you're going to be wasting away in Oakland Raiderville.
Now that we have a simple example, we can take our analysis even further. We can use this kind of information from each and every play of the Broncos season to determine the value of individual players.
The Value of a Beast and a Scheff
Let's begin with Marshall and Scheffler, simply because they are easy to analyze together since they are both pass catchers. And, whether you like him or not, you have to admit that Brandon Marshall is a fascinating creature.
After charting every pass play to Marshall and Scheffler (and every other Broncos WR), here is what I found:
| Play | Receiver | Count | Average | Play | Receiver | Count | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | Brandon Marshall | 148 | 0.509 | P | Brandon Stokley | 31 | 0.804 |
| P | Eddie Royal | 77 | 0.044 | P | Knowshon Moreno | 37 | 0.243 |
| P | Jabar Gaffney | 85 | 0.535 | P | Correll Buckhalter | 38 | 0.269 |
| P | Tony Scheffler | 48 | 0.585 | P | Peyton Hillis | 6 | -0.111 |
| P | Daniel Graham | 41 | 0.438 | P | Brandon Lloyd | 17 | 0.326 |
Remember, these are the average points values of a pass thrown to each of these receivers. So rather than simply including stats like numbers of catches or total yards (completely meaningless), these numbers convert an average points value to every pass thrown to these receivers. So that route that Marshall didn't run hard against the Eagles? It's in there. The dropped screen pass from Daniel Graham against the Chiefs? In there. And so are all of their touchdowns.
Well, you get the drift. We can convert all of these real game situations into an average points value per pass.
So what can we gather from this chart? Let's leave Eddie Royal and the others alone for a moment (I'll be dealing with them in another piece) and simply focus on Marshall and Scheffler. Well, for starters, we can see that although Marshall was targeted a lot more often than every other receiver and he had some really interesting long scores, his average points per pass play were not through the roof (.509 points per pass). Part of this is simply that Marshall had more passes with which to "smooth" his average. But it's also hard to ignore the fact that Jabar Gaffney had a higher average points per play value (.535 points) than Marshall. To this point we will return in a moment.
Scheffler, in slight contrast, had less targets, but a better value per play. This should probably be expected given the types of routes that tight ends typically run in the NFL. However, discounting Scheffler's accomplishments would be silly. When the guy gets the ball on his hands, he creates value. However, Daniel Graham, to my surprise also created decent value when he caught the ball. So we don't necessarily need to get carried away when looking at Sheffler's numbers.
What if we broke down Marshall and Sheffler even further by direction, by down, and finally, with a total points value:
| Brandon Marshall | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Direction | Count | Average | Player | Down | Count | Average | |
| BM | Short Left | 51 | 0.450 | BM | 1 | 52 | 0.510 | |
| BM | Short Middle | 36 | 0.605 | BM | 2 | 56 | 0.299 | |
| BM | Short Right | 36 | 0.198 | BM | 3 | 38 | 0.717 | |
| BM | Deep Left | 5 | 1.190 | BM | 4 | 2 | 2.403 | |
| BM | Deep Middle | 9 | 0.629 | Total Expected Points | Count | Value | Category | |
| BM | Deep Right | 11 | 1.075 | BM | 7 | 1.867 | Running | |
| BM | Shotgun | 91 | 0.456 | BM | 148 | 75.394 | Receiving |
Here is where things get interesting for Marshall. In the short passing game, he did a ton of damage, averaging 0.60 points per pass. He truly was a beast in the deep passing game, specifically along the sidelines. And on 3rd down, he was extremely valuable to the Broncos, averaging 0.72 points per pass attempt. This should not be discounted. On the most critical of downs, Marshall delivered.
His total value to the Broncos during the 2009 season was essentially 77 points when we total all of his pass plays.
What about Scheffler? Let's take a look at his chart:
| Tony Scheffler | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Direction | Count | Average | Player | Down | Count | Average | |
| TS | Short Left | 16 | 0.322 | TS | 1 | 22 | 0.057 | |
| TS | Short Middle | 8 | 0.298 | TS | 2 | 16 | 0.973 | |
| TS | Short Right | 15 | 0.720 | TS | 3 | 8 | 0.697 | |
| TS | Deep Left | 6 | 0.673 | TS | 4 | 2 | 0.788 | |
| TS | Deep Middle | 2 | 1.714 | Total Expected Points | Count | Points | Category | |
| TS | Deep Right | 1 | 2.273 | TS | 0 | 0 | Running | |
| TS | Shotgun | 22 | 0.603 | TS | 48 | 28.099 | Receiving |
Scheffler, unlike Marshall, tended to be more effective on routes to the Short Right of the field and he was simply deadly on 2nd down, averaging almost a full point per pass play. Scheffler's total points value to the Broncos in 2009 was 28 points. So although Scheffler might have had a higher value per pass play, the sheer volume of passes going Marshall's way gave Marshall almost three times more value. This is another point to which we will return.
Now we are beginning to get somewhere. By translating the production of these players into points we have a common denominator with which to make a decision. But we're not quite there yet. Let's take a look at Elvis Dumervil.
The Value of Doom
Although I have not charted every defensive play for the 2009 Broncos (I'm in the middle of this now), I did take the time to chart the points value of every one of Dumervil's sacks and tackles, specifically for this piece. Here's an example. This is how Dumervil's Week 5 sack of Philip Rivers read in the NFL's gamebook:
3-3-50 (1:52) 17-P.Rivers sacked at 50 for 0 yards (92-E.Dumervil). FUMBLES (92-E.Dumervil), RECOVERED by DEN-99-V.Holliday at SD 47. 99-V.Holliday to SD 47 for no gain (68-K.Dielman).
The expected points value of a 3rd-and-3 from the 50-yard line is 1.39 points. After the play was over, Denver had the ball at their own 47-yard line, facing a 1st-and-10. The expected points value for such a down and distance is 2.019 points. Since San Diego lost their expected points, we can add them to Denver's. So the total value of Dumervil's strip sack was a whopping 3.481 points. Or better than a Matt Prater field goal.
After looking at both sacks and tackle throughout the entire season, here is how Dumervil's performance broke down:
| Elvis Dumervil | |
|---|---|
| Play | Average |
| Sack | 1.456 |
| Tackles, Passes Defensed, Other | 0.231 |
| Total Expected Points | 33.076 |
The average value of all of Dumervil's 17 sacks, then, was about 1 1/2 points. And when put together, the value of all of Dumervil's sacks alone were worth a total of 25 points. His other tackles, passes defensed, fumble recoveries, and forced fumbles added another 8 points of value during the season.
Admittedly, I charted Dumvervil's plays very quickly, so it's possible I missed a few. Moreover, I gave Dumervil the full value of his forced fumbles on non-sacks, so the 8 points might be slightly high. However, the major point remains. Dumervil added the equivalent of about 33 points to the Broncos in 2009, or about 5 more points than Tight End Tony Scheffler. Who knew that Dumervil's defense could be so offensive!
I could go on to show all of Dumervil's point value by down, but everyone already knows Dumervil's propensity for sacking QBs on 3rd down. However, when I finish my charting for the defense, I'll be able to do this for every defensive player and in each direction.
Now we are at the point in which we can better compare the three players. So let's line their total expected points values and points values per play side-by-side:
| Expected Points Value/Play | Expected Points Value/Season | |
|---|---|---|
| Marshall | 0.509 | 75.394 |
| Scheffler | 0.585 | 28.099 |
| Dumervil | 0.612 | 33.076 |
How do you feel about the three players now? Clearly we are blatantly ignoring the contribution from the other players on the offense that contributed to the success of each of these players (the offensive line to Marshall's TDs, and Champ Bailey's coverage to Dumvervil's sacks), but we do have to draw the line somewhere.
And already we can generate a few general conclusions, without the help of a straitjacket:
- Dumervil appeared to be slightly more valuable to the Broncos in 2009 than Scheffler
- Marshall, due to his sheer volume, had more total value than both Scheffler and Dumervil combined.
- Given Scheffler's higher expected points value per play, Denver should have probably thrown him the ball more often to generate more points.
Now I'm sure you've always wanted to pretend you are a General Manger of an NFL team, so put yourself in the shoes of Brian Xanders. Each one of these 3 players is going to want to maximize their contracts, so the trick will be determining if the the contract they are seeking is clearly higher than their contribution to the overall expected points value of the entire team.
In 2009, the total expected points value of the Broncos offense was 255 points. We can't just assume that Brandon Marshall contributed a full 75 points (or 29% of the total). As we've indicated, other players contributed to these expected points. But once an estimate is made of the percentage contribution of each player to these points (and clearly Marshall and the QB would get a good share), a prudent GM can negotiate from a strong position.
In this case (and admittedly a somewhat crude example), one might estimate that Kyle Orton deserves a quarter of these points, Marshall a quarter, the offensive line a quarter, and finally, the other backs and receivers a quarter. This would put Marshall's true value at 18.75 expected points, or about 7% of the total expected points in a given year. A prudent GM wouldn't want to--in any given year--inflate Marshall's contract to much higher than 7% of the total payroll. GMs that do find themselves inflating individual player's contracts at premiums greater than the player's contribution to the overall team value quickly find themselves out of a job. Or in the case of Matt Millen, they simply go to TV.
So, again, who goes and who stays? By now, you know the answer is relative. Xanders and McDaniels should tender offers that fall within a range of each player's contribution to the expected points value of the entire team. If another team wants to beat these offers with some overpriced reach, the Broncos will be compensated, and then the question becomes, how to generate alternative investments that closely mirror the contributions of the departing players?
Could you replace Scheffler and his expected points? Maybe not at the full 100%, but I'm guessing you could get close. Daniel Graham was responsible for 18 expected points himself this year, and he's not considered an exceptional receiving tight end.
What about Marshall? Probably not. But a replacement at wide receiver (depending on the trade) could generate perhaps 60% to 75% of Marshall's contribution. Jabar Gaffney is proof of this. He contributed the equivalent almost 46 expected points in 2009. And with Marshall gone, his points would only increase. So losing Marshall, although painful, wouldn't be completely devastating. But it would sting for awhile.
And Dumervil? As one recent MHR member pointed out, sack artists don't grow on trees. Replacing Dumervil's points would be a hefty chore indeed. Robert Ayers won't even be able to get close to replacing Dumvervil's expected points for another year. And the scary thing is that Dumervil is still learning the 3-4. Sure, he needs to do a better job of stripping the QB, but I don't think he's peaked yet.
So letting go of Scheffler is bearable. Letting go of Marshall is not preferable if Denver can avoid it and avoid overpaying. But letting go of Dumervil is simply enough to drive you crazy mad.
If that happens, we'll all be banging our heads.
55 recs |
98 comments
|
Comments
This is so cool
I wish I could rec it more, but wow. You’ve clearly put tons of work into this, and the conclusion that came out of it is exactly the way I felt, which is odd because I had no idea of these point values before reading. I think we have to let Scheffler go, and we will get something for him. Marshall I would like to keep, but I think a trade package will entice. Dumervil I would re-sign no matter what.
Great piece.
Thanks Sayre. I tried to approach it without bias towards sending Marshall on his way.
My emotional side wants to sending him packing, but I know it’s not going to be easy to replace this kind of value.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
That's appreciated from my POV....
I’m stickin by BMarsh being with us, but I do love a good “hair band” classic. Twisted Sister’s “I wanna rock” comes to mind :)
"Brandon Marshall will be a happy BRONCO WR in 2010"
Broncotodd - 2009
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Rec’d for the Quiet Riot reference alone!
-TSG
SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport
Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com
or
Call Me! (303)731-5605
Follow MHR on Twitter!
Follow MHR on Facebook!
XBox Gamertag - MileHighReport
Playstation Gamertag - TheSportsGuru
It was either this or Twisted Sister. But I couldn't resist a good hockey mask.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
you know TJ....
I’m almost shocked I haven’t seen a Motley Crue Reference HAH
Can’t get enough of the STATS! STATS! STATS! They don’t lie and the never do!
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
In the Words of the infamous Boiler Room
RECCO!!!!
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
Thanks, Homie!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
How do you determine EPV?
Does the sum of EPV for all players and all plays correlate with the final score?
Interesting stuff. Thanks!
Velveeta, first, thanks for giving me another run after I botched the birth/berth sentence in a former piece..
Sometimes getting these things to Doug and John at 2am is not exactly conducive going through for a final edit. But it’s not excuse.
Regarding the EPV, there have been several studies, but most of them come to the same “general” value of different state values. In other words, there is an expected value associated with every down and distance on the field. As you can imagine, as you get closer to the opponent’s end zone, it gets higher and higher. If you are backed up against your own 1-yard line, it gets negative to the tune of almost -2.
The Football Outsiders have been using state values since the beginning when they calculate values of players and the DVOA.
But getting to the direct question, EPV is the average of how many points will be scored next by either the offense (positive EPV) or defense (negative EPV) So, going through thousands and thousands of state values using historical games (or in some studies, hard core statistical analysis), one can see that given a certain down and distance, in the long term, the next score will average out to be X.
For example, let’s use the backed-up-against-the-goal-line value. Let’s say we are facing a 4th-and-1 from our own 1-yard line. The EPV is -2.74 points. What this means is that, in the long term, the team that scores next is the defense and the average value of that score is 2.74 points.
I’m doing some analysis on the individual games right now to see how closely the EPV values correlate to the actual values of the games. Thus far, it appears as if they are exceedingly close. But I don’t want to make this statement just yet. I am going to try and present this in a follow up.
I personally find EPV to be amazing, simply because it gets at the heart of each and every play. Are you adding value? Or are you subtracting. Believe me, I was very worried about 8 games into this analysis because Eddie Royal had a negative average points per play average….AND I DID NOT want to come out here and say throwing the ball to Eddie Royal was like losing points for your team. I was going to have to cry, since I bought his jersey this year.
Thanks again, V!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
by TJ Johnson on Feb 3, 2010 11:00 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
The Dude Abides. +1 TJ. Your stats make me compulsively get out my TI-83 calculator and just start pressing numbers.....
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
YOU...must...resist.......
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Truthfully, this inspired me to write a Brandon Marshall poem/song.
I resisted the calculator for now, but the lack of limericks have made me compelled to find a different route for my inner lyricist.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
by kentuckybronco on Feb 3, 2010 11:45 AM MST up reply actions
do share!!
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
It's just been posted as a fanpost.
Good thing I don’t have class on wednesday mornings, otherwise the rhymes would have overcome me, causing a lack of focus. Organic Chemistry or Bronco rhymes? hmmmmmm
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
by kentuckybronco on Feb 3, 2010 11:55 AM MST up reply actions
If there where chemistry ryhmes....I might have been pees'd
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
by DenBronx on Feb 3, 2010 2:48 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
HAHAHAHA
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
by kentuckybronco on Feb 3, 2010 3:05 PM MST up reply actions
Here's what I find interesting
Aside from the Colts, the past 10 SB or so, there has not been what I would call an elite WR on the winning team, not a top 5 guy stats wise, good WR yes, great ones no. I think that the whole concept that an elite WR will win you games is somewhat over-rated. An elite WR may help, but it won’t win you a SB.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman
Spreading the peanut butter has it's advantages, eh? Forces the defense to account for a multitude and variety of plays and players
….as BShrout pointed out in his post on Marshall earlier in the week.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
by TJ Johnson on Feb 3, 2010 12:04 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Kinda like BM's 21 catch performance vs the Colts
It was an amazing thing to witness but it didn’t win us the game.
Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds. - Albert Einstein
Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them. - Albert Einstein
Good point
ALL of NE’s recent Super Bowl victories were pre-Moss and Welker. Deon Branch, Troy Brown, and a litany of other good — but not dominant — receivers won the trophies. Moss and Welker helped the team break records, but that’s about it…
- Nick
"We got 'em right where we want 'em!" - Keith Bishop, right before John Elway orchestrated The Drive. 'Nuff said.
A truly excellent piece TJ
Like a Slick Black Cadillac.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
It never goes out of style, does it, Kap!!!!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Not a virtuoso piece...
…but I always liked this performance (Battle Axe), particularly the classical, Spanish guitar effect at :53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7JRx7rsLY
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 Feb 3, 2010 11:15 AM MST up reply actions
This is why I love this Site.....
Great article, the time and effort put forth while writing this piece is outstanding! Even though I already came to this conclusion the stats completely sold me. Elvis must be kept and will be kept. Apparently Josh contacted him when they hired Wink so there is certainly a mutual respect between these two. Elvis also sounded excited to work for their new DC and talked as if he was already a Bronco next year. Scheffler must be dealt while Marshall is the x-factor. If he is traded I would like the organization to get a proven commodity in return and a draft pick. (I would really like him to grow up and realize there is no better city to play football than Denver) Once again excellent article T.J.!
by northoftheborder on Feb 3, 2010 10:29 AM MST reply actions
North, your eyes didn't lie to you. The numbers support this reasonable position.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Hard to quantify
One thing that is hard to quantify is what positive impact does a B Marsh have on the plays where he is NOT targeted. In other words, if you don’t have B Marsh drawing the attention of the opposing defense, what happens to Sheff’s, Gaff’s and Graham’s numbers? Still, a very interesting break down. Thanks for taking the time!
Brad, good point. Similar to when Marvin Harrison took coverage away from Reggie Wayne. I cede and agree to the point.
Hopefully the trends help us get our minds around the situation just a bit better, however.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Stats don't lie
Oohhh…my pants just moved envisioning a future Shakira (“Hips Don’t Lie”) themed analysis (complete with video)!!!
Daydreaming aside, I’m on the fence with the whole Marshall debate. If trading him allows us to get an extra elite O lineman or two, would that offset his loss? In other words, which would result in a better offense, a great O line with good receivers or an average O line with a great receiver? I think everyone agrees that a great O line makes a good running back look great.
Great question, gimmee. If we could agree on how much value those individual lineman contribute, then...
I think we could make an even better decision. My “gut” tells me that if you could:
1) Get back a WR that replaces 75% of BM’s value, and…
2) Two other players that add or increase this 25% in another area
We’d be on to something….something great.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Wow.
I’ve been lurking mostly lately, but this is enough to get me to take notice, stand-up and applaud. Excellent work, sir!
"A player who conjugates a verb in the first person singular cannot be part of the squad, he has to conjugate the verb in the first person plural. We. We want to conquer. We are going to conquer. Using the word 'I' when you're in a group makes things complicated." ~ Wanderley Luxemburgo, 1999
Thanks, ej, knowing how little you post (but when you do, you have something to say), I am very glad you did it here!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Great write up TJ
You just killed a post I had half finished. LOL
Just kidding. It will take 2-3 readings to absorb all this, but it gives some support to something I’ve been advocating: Scheffler will be gone while Marshall will most likely be back.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Oh, man, I hope not. When I am not buried under my own posts, I always lurk while reading yours.
Really, Bshrout, I love reading your stuff.
Marshall is a really tough decision…and I really do think it will be relative to the value of what BM expects. All the drama aside, Xanders and McDaniels are not stupid men.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
I was just kidding
what I’m doing is an analysis of our receivers as a corp. Your write up will help.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
You are WRONG TJ
My gut DID tell me Doom MUST be kept, that Scheff would be nice to have and that the trade for Marshall would be high enough to make a deal a no brainer. I did think at the time though that drafting Maurice Clarett was a great move. :o)
Hey, Warmick!
Of all of the MHR members, I should have prefaced my statements with: Warmick’s guts will have figured this out already:-)!!!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Great stuff, Dude
So interesting. Where did you get the idea to use expected value?
Needling aside, some questions:
I would suspect that there are problems in comparing expected point value on different sides of the ball. On offense, you have 6 guys per play who get the credit with moving/using the ball in this scheme. On defense, you have 11 who can stop plays. The credit, as it were, will be spread around more thinly. To boot, we know that turnovers generate the biggest swings in expected point value, and that INTs are easier to come by than fumbles. So part of the comparison between Marshall and Doom is the comparison between positions (which then suggests we might want to adjust value for scarcity at various positions, too). Boy, does it get complicated.
The other issue is dealing with non-linearity. As you said, it’s true that the more balls thrown to a receiver, the fewer outliers in the data. But it’s also true that the more balls a receiver gets, the more the defense will key on him. Ceteris paribus, a 150-target receiver will have a lower per-play point value than a 130-target receiver, not because of the nature of the data, but because of the nature of the game. The interesting thing about that, is that it makes Marshall more valuable, not less. With doubled or tripled use, Gaffney’s production per play would fall sharply, for example.
And then there’s the interesting optimal distribution question: Wouldn’t the offense as a whole be better off with 20 fewer throws to a more selectively used Marshall, with those balls being distributed to Gaff and Scheff? That, of course, assumes that both of those guys are open on every play on which Orton threw to Marhsall.
Here’s my question. On a play-by-play basis, Doom was worth more than Marshall. But Marshall generated more net expected points. How many more plays would Doom have to play to get to that total? I think the answer is: a whole lot. And I think we’d see his effectiveness fall, mightily. I’m into the rate-stats comparison, but the ability of Marshall to generate a good per-point value over so many plays, well…. that speaks very, very highly for him.
by Chibronx on Feb 3, 2010 11:03 AM MST reply actions 1 recs
Chi, man I am glad to see you commenting in one of my posts. I always enjoy seeing you , my friend.
Regarding the points:
1) Yes, I totally agree with you regarding the non-linearity. Unfortunately, because this EPV stuff is relatively new (and Football Outsiders isn’t just going to make their data freely available), I’ll have to do some more crunching to compare Marshall to other players. I can, however, tell you that during 2006, when Professor Wayne Winston did a similar analysis of the Colts, he found that both Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne were above .6. In a perfect world, I will have the entire season charted for every team by the start of next season and I’ll be able to know much more.
2) Optimal distribution. Good point as well. Yes, I think so. In fact, one thing that might be gleamed from all of this is an optimal strategy with respect to formation. If, for instance, we see that Eddie Royal has his highest point value in routes to the SR and Scheffler or Gaffney to the SL, you can imagine that this might be a very high powered formation indeed. Also, I think you point also speaks as to why McD could have used Scheffler a little better.
3) Great first point as well. No one has the market cornered on this yet. In fact, if you have any ideas on how one could estimate how we could allocate the EPV of any given play to the various members of a unit, I would love it hear it. But at least this is a start and I am absolutely sure that several teams are already using their own methodologies.
4) The idea of EPV came after reading Professor Winston’s book Mathletics. He and Brian Burk at Advanced Football Stats are much more advanced than I am. I contacted Professor Winston and asked if I could use his research on stat values. Luckily, he agreed that I could. His book, for me, has been simply amazing. He also does some regression and Monte Carlo simulation (YES!!!!!!) , but really enjoys the basketball stats probably more than football. So my plans are to try and chart more teams, more seasons of the Broncos past….I will be honest…I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to get this kind of data for Elway. I am literally going to be addicted to old game books so that I can bring MHR this info.
5) Marshall’s value over so many plays. You know, I had not thought of this, but it’s true. I suspect it’s also a reflection of the position one plays. D-Line vs. WR and the wear and tear. Certainly food for thought. For sure.
Chibronx, you, my friend are extremely valuable to me. And any contact via email in which we can work together on anything under the sun would be fun!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
by TJ Johnson on Feb 3, 2010 11:41 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
What, you didn’t work out all this issues, perfectly, right away? Sheesh.
Another question: Did you net out negative plays? Each incompletion has a negative EPV, and adding those in would bring the WRs’ scores back to earth quite a bit. The way the system is set up, where the WR essentially gets all the credit for everything else that went on in the play, is really going to over-reward that player.
Defense would be harder. If 5 players miss a tackle on a play, do you give each player EPV based on the yardage between him and the next guy who whiffed? As you know these aren’t criticisms, since there is no such thing as perfect statistical work. I love that you took the time to do this. Heck, I envy the fact that you had time to do this.
Anyway, this is just a running diary of my thoughts as I think of ways to wring value out of your work. I’m sure there’ll be more. That’s a promise/threat.
And mad props for getting the database from this Winston fellow. I looked into getting the win probability calculator from Advanced NFL Stats. I think there would be something like 124 million unique values. Good times!
by Chibronx on Feb 3, 2010 1:15 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice give and take you two!
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
CB
Yes, all the negative plays are in there too. So every time there is a dropped pass or a Knowshon run for negative yards, it all in there. I think you will enjoy the running backs post I am doing with all of this data. It really shows Knowshon’s weakness…..and the O-Line.
I think the next step in all of this is to try to figure out a reasonable system of allocating points among different players. Perhaps Professor Winston will have some thoughts on this. I shall ask him.
I love Burke’s win probability graphs. They are amazing. And Burke is a very nice guy too. He and Professor Winston are light years ahead of me. I learn a lot from both of them. And Burke will also email you back if you have questions too. He really is a cool cat.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
LOL! And heavily rec'd
Like John, I’m rec’ing for the Quiet Riot ref, but having now read the rest, I’m rec’ing the whole thing.
Well done my friend. You Rock!
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
Next week....Scorpions? LOL
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Thanks,wisco!!! You want a toe? I can get you a toe...
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
bitchin'!
Dude, you never cease to impress. My eyes actually concluded what your numbers did for once, which makes me extra happy.
I’m wondering though—still a little dubious on gaffney—does it make a difference if you remove his KC game and, to be fair, BMarsh’s record setting game as anomolies? I mean, is gaffney still the big shot without that game?
also, i imagine that BMarsh draws a heavier (sometimes even double) coverage, which might not only hurt his points but help others’….
rec’d as usual. i mean, please.
Ox, great points
I noticed that indeed, Gaffney shot up from about .43 to .53 with that monster game. The same with Marshall against KC and Indy. I could remove them. How about this. When I do a column specifically on each receiver (really to focus on Royal) , I’ll remove these game and normalize the comparisons. Let me make a note of this.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Man, Ox, wait until you see the data. It's not good.
But one thing that was interesting. Royal’s points value were much much much higher on one very specific route direction. It’s strange. Wait until you see it. I hope McDaniels does.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
What a thorough analysis TJ and rec'd.
I will continue to say the Dumervil is our absolute must sign this off season. Scheffler will be gone and who knows about Marshall? I wouldn’t like to be a GM having to make these decisions.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
I’m coming around to the point of view that finding ways to coexist with the headcase is the best move, esp. if his rookie contract is extended due to the owners’ war on players.
Lost in all of the fuss about how McDaniels “publicly fought” with Marshall is the part where Marhsall was “a far more productive player” in 2009 than in 2008, 2007 or 2006.
Don't you wish we could find a way to chart Marshall's maturity curve?
Will he remain the immature poor judgment displaying troublemaker or morph into a hard working team first leader? He remains very young and has an unrealistic self-image. Can he grow up? Can he actually see himself realistically and accept counsel from the likes of Rod Smith and truly change his character? I just can’t see which way he’ll go, but my first thought is that most people don’t really change that much.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
Dude, this is awesome
TJ,
This is definitely the way to go as far as determining a player’s expected points contribution on plays credited to them. It’s especially cool putting a number on things like “clutch”…that is, Brandon Stokley and his uncanny ability to make big plays with few opportunities.
There are at least a couple assumptions though. I don’t know if these can be normalized or accounted for easily.
1. When comparing Marshall vs Gaffney’s points per play, we can’t take into account the coverage that each player was receiving. One would assume Marshall’s numbers came despite drawing the opposing team’s best corner and a safety, whereas Gaffney was drawing the second best corner in perhaps single coverage, etc. I can’t think of a good way to normalize the receivers’ numbers based on the defenders covering them…
2. Doom’s expected points for a defender, off hand, seem tremendous. However, is there a way we can quantify expected points given up based on plays he couldn’t make, such as runs in his direction? Capturing that data, I would imagine, would be rather difficult, but I think it’s definitely something that has to factor into how we value a defender.
This is fascinating stuff. I can’t wait to read your next column!
Neo, about to run out the door, but...
on point 2, I think I’ll be able to get a good idea of the directional running. I use the NFL’s official gamebooks, which does list the precise direction of the run….good idea
on point 1, unless you are watching each play in the film room, that is more difficult. The NFL gamebooks only list formations like Wildcat or Shotgun, an the Defensive coverages are not listed..I’m guessing because there would be heavy disagreement on what the exact formations were….
Interesting…you could almost start a company looking at all of this and applying the data….Football Outsiders essentially did this, but they aren’t just giving it away, now are they:-)!
Thanks again, my friend!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
I think...
…you should work for our Broncos. ;)
I would have to think there are stat people employed by these teams, but who knows. As a business major myself, my mind is conditioned to look at expected return on investment, so I would think these measurements tied with player compensation would dictate negotiating terms.
Clearly that doesn’t necessarily happen. (See: Oakland Raiders)
by noleafclover on Feb 3, 2010 12:05 PM MST up reply actions
The oakland raiders do have a statistician. He just looks at 40 yard dash times, though....
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
by kentuckybronco on Feb 3, 2010 12:07 PM MST up reply actions
... and he doesn't even read those too clearly
because he’s crazy and old and has tinted reading glasses on a chain.
by oxmouth on Feb 3, 2010 12:39 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
lol
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
"I think we’re past that. I love the city of Denver. I started there and I’d like to finish there." - Brandon Marshall at the 2010 Pro Bowl
by kentuckybronco on Feb 3, 2010 12:39 PM MST up reply actions
And let's hope they employ him for a LOOOOONG time!
- Nick
"We got 'em right where we want 'em!" - Keith Bishop, right before John Elway orchestrated The Drive. 'Nuff said.
Amazing
I don’t know what else to say. The quality of work on this site never ceases to amaze me.
I’m on the fence about Marshall. I don’t believe he wants to remain a Bronco, and fear that his perfomance may suffer if he has to stay here (because we tender him and no one ponies up to get him) and his attitude could sour the team. OTH, perhaps he is all about money, and could care less about where he plays. So if we pay him perhaps he’ll be happy and productive.
I keep going back to the Philly game, where he seemed to just coast, especially through the first half. He had his 100 catches by then, and seemed content to play on autopilot for that game. That scares me and I want nothing to do with a player like that. As you showed here, Gaffney did a pretty good job in his own right, and BShrouts awesome post about how we won as a team by spreading the ball around gives me hope that we can lose Marshall and not suffer that much.
It’s going to be an eventful offseason that is sure.
Thanks for the read and rec’d.
It takes neither courage nor intelligence to cheer for a team only when that team wins. The true test of a fan's mettle is the same as it is for a player: Were you there when you were needed?
aka Solace
Jason, I hear you. Marshall is a bit of a trick.
BShrout’s post was very good and I think there is something to be said for spreading the ball around to multiple receivers.
If we can get 75% of Marshall’s point production with another WR and allocate resources to another position that will replace this value along the line, I can live with it. Shrout was on to something with respect to the winning too. For me it comes down to the value vs. production/points. If we can balance that equation, I can go either way, although I would say his 3rd down production merits a lot of consideration for staying.
Will he grow up and mature? That is the question. Can he carry Rod Smith around with him 24/7? I wish.
Dumervil is the one I don’t want to escape and I think we would be losing significant value there by letting him go.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Now that is quite a post
Thanks TJ for the hardwork putting that togther. Very interesting when you brought up Marshall, Scheffler, and Doomervil because at the beginning I was thinking of who should go if I had to let one go? I was thinking the same thing you said in your last sentence……keep Doom and Marshall. I honestly hope we keep all of them because they are all valuable to the Broncos.
Rec’d for sure. That was a very interesting read.
2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
Thanks weazel. I was like you, but as I started to look at the numbers, I began to ease on the emotion to run Marshall out of here.
It won’t be that easy to replace him. But we can probably get 75% of the way there with another Gaffney type of guy. And if Eddie finds his way back.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
It won't be easy by any means, however I am sure McD can find someone should that happen.
The one thing that has bugged me with Brandon and the three straight seasons w/ 100+ receptions is that this past season is the first time he got 10 TDs. He is mainly a possessions WR. Getting Royal back to form would be huge and I would like to see Lloyd get more playing time. What happened to McKinley? I know he was placed on IR, but he isn’t on the roster when I checked the Broncos main site.
Like when we traded Cutler, we better get a starting WR should a Marshall trade happen.
2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
Thanks, bfree. I'll probably refute myself next week.
I think Walt Whitman wrote, Do I contradict myself? Well, then, I contradict myself!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Where did you get your EPV from?
I found some on advancednflstats.com, but yours look different becasue you have more significant digits. I find this stuff interesting and thanks for the amazing work.
I think he worked them out himself...
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 3, 2010 4:24 PM MST up reply actions
Hey Lake, I crunched every play to get the points values, but the state value come from...
…Professor Wayne Winston and his research into state values, with his permission of course. Brian Burk is doing some great stuff on state values as well, however, so I want to make sure I give some props to him. Football Outsiders did their own set of them as well. I must say I really like Brian and Wayne because they tend to want to be helpful to other stats guys. FO is all about the profit, baby. And I’ve not problem with that. The weakness in most of the studies is they are restricted to 1st down sets. Winston’s state values give you the whole enchilada so to speak, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th downs, from the 1 to the 99.
At first, I was crunching my own stat values, but it takes a whole hell of a long time to get the data. And as long as each side is using the same EPV values, the study that you chose to use isn’t as important as staying consistent.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Thanks dude
I was wondering where the state values come from. I guess I stumbled across Brian Burk’s data withou really knowing it. He allows you to download a spreadsheet with all of the values on them. I have only taken one stats class in college but I really liked and wish I would have taken it earlier in my college career because I might have changed majors. I want to make sure I understand how you are figuring these numbers, if you are willing to confirm of course.
So for example lets say the Broncos have the ball and it is 1st and 10 on the Bronco 20. EPV=0.34. Orton completes a 28 yard pass to Marshall so it is now 1st and 10 on the Bronco 48. EPV=1.92. So the value of that play would be 1.92-0.34=1.58.
Also on a play that results in a touchdown I assume you figure it as 7pts(for the touchdown whether they go for 2 or miss/make the extra point) – the EPV
So for example lets say it is 2nd and Goal from the 3. EPV=5.29. And Scheffler catches a TD. So the value of that play is 7-5.29=1.71.
Again thanks for the post dude!
Lake, no worries about the stats. I came to them later as well. I was not a stats major.
I still struggle with some advanced statistical methods and there are a million better stats guys than I am. I would say learning regression has been the most helpful to me.
Regarding your examples, that is correct on the 1.92-.34 = 1.58. So that play would have an EPV of 1.58 points. Regarding Touchdowns and Field Goals, however, that’s a different story. You could go with 7 and 3 and no one would probably fight with you too much, but in reality, the 7 is not technically accurate. It’s more like 6.74 and 2.74 points because the average starting field position for a kickoff is around the 27-yard line. And the points value for a 1st-and-10 at the 27-yard line is .266. So the thinking is that we subtract this from the touchdown. So I have been standardizing my field goals and touchdowns at 2.74 and 6.74 points.
If we wanted to be really really technical, we could go into every single field goal and/or touchdown and look at the next starting field position of our opponent and calculate the value of each individual TD or FG. For example, let’s say that I just scored a touchdown. On the next kickoff, my opponent runs the ball back all the way to my 1-yard line. The EPV for them for a 1st-and-1 at my 1-yard line is: 6.296. So those 7 points that I just scored? It wasn’t worth much at all! Here is how it looks: 7-6.296 = .704 points.
You can begin to see why field position and special teams…specifically kick off coverage is vital to winning in the NFL.
One last thing. You might want to know how to handle punts and turnovers. You essentially take my EPV at the beginning of the play and then my opponents EPV at the end of the play. You either add or subtract them from mine. Here’s an example. Let’s say I have the ball at the 50-yard line, 1st-and-10. That’s an EPV of 1.875. Now let’s say I fumble the ball on that play and my opponent picks it up and runs it back to my 10-yard line. Now they have an expected points value of 1-and-10 at the 90. That’s an EPV of 5.195. For ME (my offense) I just not only cost my team the EPV of 5.195, but I also lost the 1.875 EPV that I was looking at getting! Thus the EPV for me on that play was:
-5.195
-1.877
EQUALS
=-7.07
So this turnover is the equivalent of giving up a score in EPV terms. And guess what? When my opponent has a 1st-and-10 at my 10-yard line, you probably are going to give up 7.
Punts are the same way. Wait until you see how Kern looked against Berger. I love it because everyone kicks Berger, but Berger actually had a higher points per play value than Kern when using this analysis. You’ll see what I mean soon.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Thanks TJ
I may be emailing you with some more questions when I get the time. I would eventually like to offer you some help with crunching some numbers involving this and the countless ways it could be used. I don’t know if I would have the time right now. I think it would be cool to look at Shannon Sharp, and TD’s careers and see how they stack up to HOF’s and potetntial HOF’s. Floyd Little would be cool too but I doubt you could assmble the data. I look forward to your future analysis on other players.
really
of course marshall is more easier to replace theres probably 10 or 12 other guys who could replace marshall in denver nobodys gonna have the impact rushing the qb dumervill did and if denver can get high picks and draft another impact dline man he will even be better
by aussiesbiggestbroncofan on Feb 3, 2010 7:36 PM MST reply actions
I wouldn't say Marshall is "easy" to replace, just that there are more WRs that can replace some of this value.
Whereas, as you indicate (and I as well) that Dumervil’s sacks are hard to replace.
On the flip side, let’s say you found someone who can replace 13 of Doom’s 18 sacks, but was better against the run. You might focus on keeping Marshall as a primary strategy. Unfortunately, that guy doesn’t exist, and I think Robert Ayers is another year from being a 10+ sack guy. We know Mario Haggan is certainly not a sack guy, so the options are limited.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Excellent work TJ!!!
Rec’d at least once (=
I think I need to read through it again before attempting an intelligent response.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Thanks, HP. No intelligence needed. How do you think I was able to write this piece!!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Super Rec'd !!!!
best stuff I’ve read in a long time!!
CentSports free 10 cents to bet with Better than Fantasy Football, pick'em!!
Its awsome to see the thoughts swirling in my head be understood from the mathamatical values
CentSports free 10 cents to bet with Better than Fantasy Football, pick'em!!
Rig, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad it confirmed for you what you had been thinking.
For me it softened me a bit on Marshall, but confirmed my thoughts on Marshall and Scheffler, although….
I think Scheffler could be used much more effectively if he was kept. He is a weapon and would certainly add more value if McDaniels chose to keep him around.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Elite super bowl WR
Someone mentioned that the past 10 super bowl winners didnt have an elite wr aside from the colts. what about Burress from the Giants or Holt and Bruce from the Rams, Ward from the Steelers, or Keyshawn Johnson from the Bucs.
by Cali_BroncosFan on Feb 3, 2010 11:17 PM MST reply actions
I guess like Art, "elite" is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
nice job tj!
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.
that's my aussie friend!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Outstanding Dude!
Just a really interesting take. However, one of the things that set the duo of Rod Smith and Ed McCaffery apart was their down-field blocking abilities. Is there any way to assign value scores for this activity based on the production of another (Knowshon or TD)? The other thing this brings up is McDaniels’ refusal to incorporate Scheffler’s obvious talents into the offense (which in turn might lead to comments like “Man, I can’t wait for this season to be over!”) I’ll give you that he drops too many balls and his blocking has been a work in progress, but still. And the same could be said for Stokely (although it should be noted that he didn’t spout off about it). Once again, big props to you for a lot of outstanding work!
Go Broncs!
It's "just" football
by Donkhead on Feb 4, 2010 6:19 AM MST reply actions 1 recs
Donk, this is an excellent point.
Yes, I think you could do it if you wanted to go back to the film and study every player in relation to the play. So the context of each play could be taken and you could make a value judgement as to whether or not the block was good or bad.
This is essentially what Football Outsiders have been doing and also the excellent work over at ProFootball Focus. Of course, anytime one gets into such subjective criteria, then an argument could ensue. Was that block really helpful? One guy might say yes, the other guy might say, “not that much.”
But the main thing would be to standardize it and be consistent. I am hoping that Jeremy Bolander can weigh in on this slightly because he has done some of this work before. And when Bolander speaks, I listen.
Regarding Scheffler, it’s true. Given his value per play, McDaniels could look at this and say, “you know, should incorporate this guy into the offense better.” My main point, however, is that given the context of Scheffler’s total point value in 2009 to the Broncos, if one has to replace this value, it can be done. And with the attitude as a secondary consideration, I suspect it will be so.
Again, excellent point.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Great points DH
A couple of points that I think get overlooked when it comes to Scheffler:
1)From what I’ve read, McDaniels’ playbook does not make extensive use of TE’s. Thus it would be hard to incorporate Scheffer’s strength — receiving.
2)Scheffler was thrown to almost as many times in 09 as he was in 08 (60 targets in 08, 50 in 09). But his reception percentage dropped (40 recs for a 66.7% in 08, 31 recs for 62% in 09). Contrast this with Graham, who saw a similar drop in targets (50 in 08, 42 in 09), but whose reception percentage improved (32 recs for 64% in 08, 28 recs in 09 for 66.6%). So, if you look at it Scheffler received more touches than Graham. The biggest difference between the two is Graham’s ability to block on both passing & non-passing plays.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
BShrout, as always, my friend, you put the stamp on it. Precisely. Good comment.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
DB, I am thinking you just gave me a perrrrfect idea.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
TJ, excellent as always!
We are very lucky to count you among the Bronco faithful. I wanted to add to everyone else’s thoughts…as impressive as is all the work you put into this post (and all your others), I am ALWAYS blown away by the fact that you respond to most of the comments/questions to your posts. Your stuff always generates a lot of conversation, and I am blown away by your dedication and how great you are to the rest of us, spending so much time answering, debating, and explaining things AFTER you’ve spent so much time creating the original piece of work! Kudos to you, sir, and Rec’d!
- Nick
"We got 'em right where we want 'em!" - Keith Bishop, right before John Elway orchestrated The Drive. 'Nuff said.
Thanks, NCM, I really appreciate it.
For me the trick is not to let myself take a hard position too often. Even if I take a hard-line position in the piece itself, usually someone brings up something that validity.
And with stats, as my friend Chibronx points out, you will never have a perfect model. You just can’t have it. So perhaps it’s a little easier for me to bend my positions as opposed to an opinion piece where you sort of have to lock yourself in.
At the end of the day, I am fascinated by what makes a team win. I think stats can add real value to this debate.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Only reason Scheff's release is bearable....
is how pathetically McD and his offense used him. The reason Gram’s production was similar is, I swear, the defenses totally forgot about him due to how infrequently we threw to him. I think it is a tough call as to who SHOULD be let go in order to keep one or possibly two. I agree, though, if this year is any indication of our use of the TE in the passing game, then Scheff for us presents the least value.
Update of sorts on Marshall, on the DP
Broncos News: Brandon Marshall open to playing for Broncos next season
"Learning from last year and last offseason, I approached things unprofessional," Marshall said today at the Super Bowl XLIV media center. "This offseason I’m just going to go with the flow and just go in whatever direction the Broncos want to go."
After not granting interviews during the Pro Bowl events last week, Marshall broke his silence today so he could promote the NFL 2009 Season in Review DVD that comes out June 1.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
great stuff
very interesting TJ, and great discussion everyone.
Look forward to seeing more.

by 
































