Assessing the Situation -- Denver Broncos First and Ten Offense
Over the next few weeks I am hoping to post my research into 2009 Denver Broncos situational football. This means looking at typical "situations" and discussing what the Broncos goals were, how they addressed them, how they executed, and finally how they addressed their performance or lack thereof in any given situation.
To begin with, I wanted to look at the most basic situation in football. First and Ten.
First and ten can be thought of as an "identity" down. Every team goes through so many of them throughout the course of the season, that you can get a sense of what makes an individual team tick. The purpose and goals of a first down situation are pretty simple, and there are as many ways to attack them as there are plays in a game. But when you look at any individual team, the way they specifically choose to approach first downs really tends to say a lot about them, their strengths, and even what they fear.
Some teams establish a type of offensive strength on first down, such as the Colts passing attack. Some teams establish trends, only to break them at opportune times, such as a Shanahan offense. There are limitless ways of describing yourself through first down.
So what did the Broncos think of themselves in 2009? And what do their offseason moves say about themselves in 2010?
First and Ten: Priorities
- The number one goal of any first down is simply to get a 2nd and 6 situation, or less.
- Create explosive plays with consistency, going no more than two or three series without an attempt
- Rushing: Over the course of a game or season, we shouldn't look straight to YPC, since a back could carry a 4.0ypc on first down, but still be failing to help the team get into healthy 2nd downs consistently. Rather, success should be measured in a binary fashion, you either did or didn't get at least 4 yards on first down. How much less or how much more doesn't matter.
- Rushing: Almost any type of rushing play goes, but in general, teams want to avoid relying on plays that develop in the backfield.
- Passing: Passing plays should guarantee a completion, and sacks are unacceptable. Quick drops are preferred.
- Passing: Passing out of base run formations should be attempted. This will pull outside defenders in to the interior of the defense, and open up possible "big strike" throwing lanes on the outside. Playaction can be very effective.
- Passing: Choosing passing plays run out of wide sets will help define coverages and blitzes, as well as help the QB reads
- This is the best opportunity to run packaged side calls, i.e. a QB and WR recognize a particular defense and alter their route/throw accordingly. Additionally, being able to flex between run and pass on this down via a QB check is vital.
- Balance! Over the course of a game it is important, over the course of a season it is critical. First down is an opportunity down and losing balance means losing opportunity. You will be at 3rd down in no time.
General Overview of First Down
Throughout I will generally speak in terms of an "x/10" rating, with 10 being perfect.
General Execution: 5/10
The Broncos saw 402 opportunities to execute offensively on 1st down throughout the season, and, as should be expected from an 8-8 team, they executed well about half the time, on 208 total plays. This held to be universally true pretty much across the board, including 101 of 204 running plays out of a running formation, 39 of 79 passing plays out of a passing formation, 19 of 33 runs out of passing formations, and 46 of 87 passes out of rushing formations. The overall balance of run/pass on 1st down favored the run by a 3/2 margin.
Staying true to the amoeba form, a lot of the identity results are as we should expect them to be, i.e. generally vague. However the Broncos were definitely relying on their running game to put them in good positions, and though the playaction certainly wasn't a staple of the offense, especially compared to the recent offenses under Shanahan, using the run to set up the pass was a very common theme in most games, and some of the Broncos best execution came when they passed out of running formations. In the game by game we'll see this dynamic a bit more clearly.
Rushing Overview of First Down
Rushing Execution: 5/10
Again, nothing to hang our hats on here. About half the time the Broncos were able to get themselves into 2nd and 6 scenarios, and these numbers need to start edging over into 60% territory. Both Buck and Knowshon had averages over 4.0ypc on first down, but remember the disclaimer above. They were still only helping the team on first down about half the time. This "half the time" percentage applied whether they were running inside or outside the tackles. They were slightly more productive running to the left on first down, running effectively a little over half the time, but the right side saw the outliers, with a few longer runs.
Of note was that they were slightly more productive than average when passing to set up the run, and 1st down passing formations yielded a higher percentage of success overall, though they resisted going to that well too often. The stretch of games through Oakland to San Diego made particular use of tricky runs, usually quite effectively. Later in the season, those opportunities must have dwindled, because attempts dried up quickly.
Knowshon Moreno: 5/10
Knowshon split 1st down reps pretty consistently with Buck at the beginning of the season, and it wasn't until the latter half that his numbers pulled away. He was most productive during the middle stretch, starting vs. Dallas and ending around the Indy game. Before Dallas, he was hitting less than 50% on 1st down effectiveness, and after Indy he was was hovering around 37%, but during the middle stretch he was very effective, and that level of play would have Denver consistently in good situations on 2nd down, which would mean even better 3rd down situations as well. And every little bit helps. Where he stood out, was in creating the occasional explosive play, though even that was not much above average.
Correll Buckhalter: 5/10
Buck ended up with about half as many 1st down rushes as Moreno, despite starting the season pretty much equal with him. Buck's two injuries over the course of the season limited his overall game, and the contrast to pre-injury is stark. Before his injury he was hitting over 75% on 1st down, which are solidly dependable numbers through the first 5 games. After the injury his effectiveness dropped to around 30%, and he missed full games in the process. But a healthy Buck is just what the doctor ordered on first down, especially with several of his season highs (45, 34, 28) coming in the process. A dangerous, explosive runner on first down is a handy thing to have.
Others:
The only other 3rd down rushing action came from Hillis (1 rep outside of his 4 clean up duty reps, and it was a stumbling 2 yard effort that didn't help much), BMarsh (he was used 3 times throughout the season on reverses and end arounds, all of which were solid gainers, from 5-9 yards), and Jordan who 13 reps of clean up duty and relief after Buck's injury, none of which were impressive. Denver clearly looks to their workhorse RB rotation for 1st down production, so Buck and Moreno are the biggest factors.
Passing Overview of First Down
Execution: 5/10
Again with the nothing special. Like the running game, this is something that has to start creeping up into the 60%+ range before defenses will start respecting the offense. We are only talking about 4 yards here. Unfortunately, over half of these attempts ended with incompletions, and a whopping 11 plays were first down sacks, which is simply unacceptable. Many of the sacks came early in the game against Denver, and 3 of them came on Denver's first offensive play of the game. There is no excuse for that, except not being prepared.
Jabar Gaffney: 6/10
Gaffney was targeted 25 times on first down, and managed to execute on just over half of them, hovering around 60%. He didn't show any streakiness in this regards, tending to have a good game, then a poor game, then a good game, etc. As noted below, he was a prime target for when Orton tried to attempt a 1st down explosive play. Tony Scheffler had very similar numbers and graded out to a 6/10 as well on 4 fewer targets, though he was a little more streaky. The Philadelphia and 2nd San Diego games in particular were low spots for Scheff.
Correll Buckhalter: 7/10
Buck only saw 12 first down targets, but he was very consistent. Mostly he was surehanded, catching anything that was near him, and succesffully getting at least four yards a whack. He was primarily targeted out of the backfield, and was almost always wide open.
Knowshon Moreno: 5/10
Knowshon really struggled early in the passing game, flashing once or twice before coming into his own later in the season. He was targeted 14 times on first down, only managed to execute on half that.
Eddie Royal: 5/10
Part of the wholly average theme, Eddie was rarely used as a passing target on 1st down, and saw too many incompletions go his way to really help produce. Of his 10 successful conversions, less than half got far enough to earn a first down, while the rest of the WRs were all in the 60% range when it came to additional RAC after the 4 yards.
Others:
Stokley, Hillis, Jordan, Quinn and Lloyd all saw very limited targets and reps on first down, with most logging only 1 or 2 opportunities. Daniel Graham was rarely targeted, but early in the season he was very consistent. Around the time that Chris Simms took the field, and then took a bow, Graham saw a dive in his productivity, and then struggled late, especially in the final KC game. Overall he graded out at 6/10 with his strong early showing.
Dearly Departed: 5/10
On first down Marshall was at once the most targeted, and the most streaky of all the receivers. He would string together 5 great plays where he was a dependable option and got upfield after the catch, and then there would be 7 series where he would drop the first ball thrown his way, or simply be out of time with Orton. His final two games, Oakland2 and Philadelphia, he was a non-factor on first down, despite being targeted 9 times. For the season he managed to execute on about 23 of 47 1st down opportunities.
Explosive Plays Overview of First Down
Explosive Plays Execution: 7/10
Explosive plays, usually generated in the passing game, are an important concept on 1st downs (and 2nd) because defenses have to defend so much more at that point, and are generally spread thin. It is very important to use these opportunities to put the pressure on and swing the game in your favor. For the most part, these plays come from a handful of sources. The best source is the planned opportunity. This is when the playcall comes in specifically because an opportunity should present itself. It is up to the QB and usually the WR to recognize the opportunity and take it. Another source is from the shorter play that becomes explosive due to the skills of the player, such as Brandon Marshall breaking tackles or Buckhalter juking a LB out of his jock and dashing down the sideline. These are nice when you can get them. A third source is the tacking on of yards with a penalty that makes a good gain into a great one.
When it came to executing the big play, Denver was very effective, and it came down to primarily two guys, Jabar Gaffney and Brandon Marshall. They both were targeted 10 times on the season, and additionally BMarsh created his own explosive play from scratch 3 times, while Gaffney "created" twice. Gaffney was slightly more reliable on the targeted plays, and as a result he edged out BM for the team lead, with 9 successful executions, while BM had 8. the next best contributors were Moreno, with 5 explosive runs that were self-created, Buck, with 4 self-created explosive plays, and then Scheffler, who was targeted 7 times for the explosive play and converted 4 of them. Stokes was targeted once, no conversion, and Lloyd was targeted four times in the final game of the year, only converting one. Other "creators" were Royal with 2 short receptions that he turned up the field and Graham who managed to do that once.
Explosive Play Opportunities: 3/10
The Broncos weren't even close to tapping their potential in this area, with created plays tied with successful planned ones 17-17. Total called shots were 32, which averages out to 2 per game. Take the final KC game out of the equation, when Denver really let their hair down, after it was too late, and there were only 21 called shots for the entire season on first down, when opportunity is highest. These are calls that need to be made 5-6 times per game, at least. The Broncos could barely bring themselves to call one. If it wasn't for some of the talented athletes like Moreno and BM making something out of nothing, the numbers would look even worse.
2010 Overview of First Down Offense
On pretty much every facet the Broncos simply need to get more consistent, but a few things stand out in particular.
- Better Run/Pass Balance on 1st down. The Broncos were skewed to 69%+ run plays vs pass, and that needs to come down to 60-40 at least. This will primarily be influenced by playcalling from the sidelines, so this one is on Josh.
- Take more planned explosive plays on 1st down. Usually, teams can't get enough explosive plays because their run isn't effective enough. That would also be true of Denver as well. Hitting 50% in the 1st down running game doesn't force defenders to move inside, and as a result there are fewer opportunities available in the passing game on the outside. Denver did stick with the running game, but that only resulted in becoming imbalanced. Another big part of this is whether or not the QB and WR recognize the opportunity. With a second year in the system, Orton will likely be that much better at identifying them, but with two new rookie WRs, some opportunities can be expected to be missed. However Gaffney, Royal and the RBs should be in tune with Orton, and Moreno has drawn McD's praise for his work in the passing game in OTAs.
- Get more production on first down running. Every team needs this, but it is seriously cramping Denver's style right now. The quick passing game simply has little room to maneuver when a defense sits right on top of the routes and receivers. Without a running game drawing them in, explosive plays become rare. Without those special plays, every game becomes a grindfest that is emotionally and physically draining, win or lose. A few more yards on first down could make a world of difference. To this end, with the two main backs having a full year of the system under their belts, that has to help. In addition, there looks to be some really good RB competition for camp, which should help the depth immensely.
One thing became clear to me with this analysis of 1st down, and it was that 1st down was neither a strength nor a weakness of this team. While it was holding them back in certain areas, it wasn't so consistently bad that the errors shouldn't have been overcome. However, some moves Denver has made, particularly addressing the OL and RB depth should have fringe benefits for the first down package. Denver will likely stick with much the same formula as last year, hoping for better execution to open more opportunities. In passing camp a lot of emphasis was being given to getting the ball further downfield, which is a statement about the lack of explosive plays from early reps in each offensive series. Likely the opportunities were there in 2009, but Orton simply didn't take them often enough. When he did, the performance was there on the receivers end for the most part, although the addition of Thomas at WR as a player who has the size and ability to attack the ball downfield adds a component that was missing from 2009.
38 comments
|
32 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wonderful Jeremy!
Did you include first and goal in your analysis? I would like to see more deception on first down with more passing plays disguised in run formations or play action this year.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
1st and goal was not included
neither was 1st and short due to penalty bonuses nor 1st and 10+ which is a totally different category. I almost didn’t include 2minute offense 1st and tens, or “coming out” 1st and tens, but in the end included them.
Even though 1st and ten has a lot to analyze, it is too much filmwork to do all at once for a whole season. Outside of clearing up a few questions (formation mostly) this is primarily a statistical analysis with impressions from watching, rather than detailed notes.
I have 28 total situations I will be covering, and except for first and ten defense, all the rest will be based on film review, with custom descriptive stats for what I am seeing. that work has already been done. Trying to get the stuff organized into a coherent post is all that is left at this point.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 1:29 PM MDT up reply actions
This post
exemplifies why the MHR is such a successful site. Rec’d. Excellent work. Thank you.
One comment, it is very difficult to get those explosive first down plays when you only get over four yards fifty per cent of the time. I do not think any opponent after week six respected our running game. Trenches man, trenches.
It all starts in the trenches - HT 11/11/08
Leave the hateful vitriol to the uninformed - HT 3/16/09
by firstfan on Jun 23, 2010 11:59 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
that is it
The impression I was getting was that by continuing to run anyways McDaniels was trying to create a “numbers” situation where teams would play the run anyways, even though they didn’t need to respect it, sort of luring them in. Pretty much all the games started out that way later int he season, but two jump out: NYG and KC1. Our first down running execution in both games was solid at the beginning of the game, and not surprisingly, those were the two games we won late.
I wanted to include a game by game analysis of each category, but the post was simply getting too long, with too much to digest. Within the season there were high water marks, but more interestingly, within games there was a similar ebb. For example, in the Philadelphia game, our 1st down offense was absolutely putrid with 7/23 execution rate, or 30.4%. Not good. The defensive effort we got in that game, and two key plays by Gaffney and orton were the only thing that kept us in it.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 1:41 PM MDT up reply actions
Excellent, Jeremy
Thanks for the analysis. Lots of key data in there.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
too much data
I figured I would use the comments to talk about stuff i had to leave out for space considerations. Thankfully most of the other situations I will be covering allow for a much more in depth look.
400 instances is just too many to do much more than give an overview.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 1:43 PM MDT up reply actions
Great analysis Jeremy,
Thanks for taking the time to put it together and share it with us.
"I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: Try to please everybody."
Very interesting stuff.
It makes me feel a little bit more comfortable about our WR situation, too. I can’t wait to see how our new rookies are going to influence our strategy on first down, as well.
And the “explosive plays” section was quite revealing with 2 created explosive plays from Gaffney with 3 from Marshall. A lot of Marshall’s jukes and spins led to a gain of a yard or two, but not many sprung for a large gain. That part does makes sense to me. Every once in a while (3 times), you get a run like the TD against the Cowboys, but more often than not, a juke will earn a yard or two. However, it’s still just a bit shocking to me that Gaffney would still have more targeted explosive plays than Marshall even though he didn’t touch the ball nearly as often. Very interesting, indeed.
Amazing post, by the way and highly… highly… highly rec’d.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
by Troy Hufford on Jun 23, 2010 12:13 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
good catch
my thoughts on the BM/Gaff stuff.
Remember we are only talking about 1st down here, so be careful about what you project beyond this situational analysis.
BM saw 47 targets on 1st down passing, and only 23 conversions. Now that isn’t receptions, just conversions. A reception for -1 counts towards his 100+ reception total, but does jack for us on first down. 23 conversions means that 23 times he actually did something that helped the team. Of the remaining 27 opportunities, 20 were incompletions or drops, and 7 were receptions that weren’t effective. By the time we get through all of the situations I am presenting, we should have a pretty good idea about how valuable his 100 receptions were (my guess is that they were 50/50: about half of them helped the team, the rest were useless. Average.)
Regarding the explosives, I think that the WR/QB recognition of the situation is what helped Gaffney. the WR routes in McDaniels’ system are designed to complement eachother on any given play, with the result that everyone is working for one guy to have an opportunity. Among those routes, at least one will have a “packaged side” i.e. a component of the route that is specifically altered if the defense shows something in particular before the snap. Josh is trying to get calls in to the offense that will match up with defensive tendencies, and it is up to Orton and the WR to recognize certain defensive conditions and expect the route to be altered to create an explosive.’ Gaffney already knew all these tendencies form his time in New England, and he is a smarter than average receiver as it is, which is why I think his role often was to be the target for planned explosives. BM converted 5 of 10 planned opportunities compared to Gaffney’s 7 of 10, which is actually kind of close. Where BM struggled was getting the long ball in over his shoulder, since he isn’t an attack the ball kind of WR. All in all, I think BM was developing nicely with the explosives, since he didn’t have Gaffney’s background. he also got 3 times as many reps overall, so that should be considered as well, but overall i would say that BM executed about half the time when we needed him on 1st, while Gaffney was just a little better.
It does give hope that, at least in this situation, that Gaffney can replace Marshall’s production on first down. Projecting numbers, if Gaffney gets BM’s number of touches, he ends up with 14 explosives on 20 targets, which would be a good start.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 2:00 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just for clarification, what constitutes an "explosive" play?
Is it a specific amount of yardage or something?
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
by Troy Hufford on Jun 23, 2010 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions
I wish I could say that it was totally objective
but I contextualized many of the decisions in that area.
1) No matter what, it should be a first down. I didn’t include it in the list above, but getting a first down is really the optimal goal for 1st downs. This means that 10 yards is a minimum, though I didn’t note any that were that short.
2)The amount of yards was a number in service to the idea of ‘game changing.’ the lowest # of yards in an explosive play that I recorded was 15 yards on a Correll Buckhalter run in the first San Diego game. The context was that the run was being bottled up to that point, and it was the longest run of the game and gained them an instant first down. It was totally different from the effectiveness of the runs that came before it. Contrast that to multiple 15-20 yard passing plays in the final KC game that weren’t counted as explosive because KC had a decent lead and were giving up sections of the field. But earlier, when KC was trying to stop us in our own end, a 20 yard run by Moreno was considered to be explosive, and swung the momentum, temporarily, our way.
3)Deep passing attempts on 1st down out of running formations was considered to be an explosive attempt. Deep passes from passing formations was almost always an explosive attempt.
4)I only credited explosive running plays that actually created a lot of yards past scrimmage, and got a first down. there were no ‘attempts’ to create an explosive running play, since I have nothing to gauge the intent of a running play. to me, that onus lays on the RB.
5)It is possible that end arounds, reverses, general trickery should be classified under “planned explosives.” If that were the case, it is questionable how you would score BMs attempts, since all three were at least 4 yards, so in that sense were successful first down plays, but none went for over 9 yards, which wasn’t enough for a first down. the lack of overall yardage prevented me personally from considering the reverses to be ‘explosives,’ but one could certainly argue that their intent was to be explosive. Which they weren’t, which would make them failures? But we still got at least 4 yards, so they aren’t? I just left them out, for simplicities sake.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 3:30 PM MDT up reply actions
Thanks for an excellent assessment, Jeremy
This kind of article always whets my appetite for another Broncos season! Rec’d.
GO BRONCOS!
'The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.'
-- Albert Einstein
This is my favorite thing I have ever read on MHR
I will be very eager to see the remaining parts of the series.
For running backs, my mind is blown that Median YPC, as opposed to average, is not a widely available stat. Football Outsiders tries to deal with this via a “success rate” stat, but that one is context-dependent and has so many adjustments it’s not transparent. for a bird’s-eye-view, median YPC is fantastic because you can say: half the time, the dude got this many yards or more.
The news that Marshall generated 3 great plays of his own, compared to 2 for Gaff, makes me happy to have 2 second rounders. That’s within the margin of error, and if you’re going to shell out huge for a guy, the results had better be unambiguous.
For the rest of this, I find interpretation difficult since we were looking at year 1 of a new system. I think it is best to treat this as a baseline against which to measure future offenses. The one strong conclusion is that they were just way way way too risk adverse on first-down. Too run-wacky, and too conservative in the passing game. That comes through clearly despite all the caveats we have to atach to the analysis of a first-year system. Which makes it quite a finding.
believe me
I started this about 4 months ago, and I figured “I’ll just go through those situational splits and cull the data, put a post up tomorrow…” Uh uh. This was intended to be a 3rd down analysis to complement TJ’s 3rd down post way back when, but when I realized I would be figuring all the median information by hand, I blew the project up to include everything, just to make it worth the time. I was shocked by the splits they did provide. Want to know Knowshon’s YPC at M&T stadium? They have a split for that. Like I couldn’t just go look that game up.
What I like about the medianYPC, perhaps more than anything, is that you don’t have to establish arbitrary cutoffs for outliers. Straight YPC is critically skewed for Buck because of his 3 big first down runs. They make him look like the return of TD. If I throw away worst best scores with avgypc, it still leaves his 34 and 29 yarder, still skews the data. At a certain point what you try to say becomes as arbitrary as the cutoff.
Regarding Marshall, 1st down receptions represent 30% of his credited reception totals (23 well executed plays, 7 not so well), while his 1st down yardage represents 36% of his total credited production. We are only about a 3rd of the way towards understanding his true impact. Of course, we don’t have the full picture yet on Gaff, either.
And interpretation is exceptionally difficult at this point. I agree, outside of confirming what we all viewed as a risk averse attitude, mostly 1st down analysis just reaffirms that they aren’t quite what they want to be just yet, with no clear indication of what that is. And of course, we can layer in the amoeba where it isn’t really anything.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 2:41 PM MDT up reply actions
fabulous!!!...
Can’t wait to see all this. MANY MANY thanks, as this is the stuff I absolutely live for.
Simply enlightening
Thanks for all the work you put into that Jeremy. That was a most excellent post. Rec’d
Opinion: I like 69 / 31% ratio of run to pass…as long as we run well. I would like to see our guys push people around more on the O-line…I think that is the key to everything.
"Precipitation, which side are you on?
Are you on the rise? Are you falling down?
Let me know, Come on let's go, yeah
Got some if you need it!" -EV
excellent point
if the run is effective, we actually want to see the ratio we saw last year, because it means we are taking more big strike opportunities.
Excellent observation.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 2:05 PM MDT up reply actions
You da man, Bolander!
Great perspective, as usual. Will sure be interesting to see how our tendencies change behind bigger bodies on the O line and a full time (well, mostly) power blocking scheme.
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
WOW!
I can’t even begin to phathom the amount of research and analysis that went into this piece/series; thanks for doing the dirty work for us!
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
Run Pass Balance
from a game theory perspective the run pass balance was probably appropriate since they were equally effective.
Before they increase the percentage of passing they first need to increase the effectiveness of passing, That means either completing a higher percentage of passes while maintaining the same median gain (not likely) or increasing the gain on the passes completed. That means most likely throwing downfield more.
right
I didn’t know what to list first, so consider the list the be unprioritized.
It is of course worth mentioning that one of the first reports out of OTAs was that they were doing a lot more downfield passing. I feel like Orton’s second year will have him recognizing even more opportunities, which should help his confidence when making those types of decisions. He crawled, and now he can walk. With any luck he will be running before too long.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 4:16 PM MDT up reply actions
Brian Burke did an analysis
of first down probabilities and he found that teams actually need to gain about 4.5 yards on first down to break even.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 23, 2010 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions
Thanks for the link!
We can see that the break even point for 2nd down is 5.5 yards. In other words, a team (whose purpose is to get a 1st town) should prefer a 2nd down and 5 to a 1st and 10, but it should prefer a 1st and 10 to 2nd and 6.
For 3rd down, the break even point is at 1.5 yards. A team should prefer a 1st and 10 to any other 3rd down situation 2 yards or longer. This was a little surprising to me. I expected the break even point to be around 3rd and 3 or 4.
My first question going in was whether it was prudent to round up or down, since I doubted that the numbers would prove to be hard enough to require one or the other.
My personal view of it was that 1st and 10 for most teams was the equivalent of 2nd and long (6+). So in my mind, you target 4 yards on first down, and also on 2nd and 6, and the result is 3rd and 2.
It seems like Burke is fine tuning that, to where 5 yards on 1st and 10 is preferrable, but less than 4 is acceptable on 2nd and 6. We both arrive at the same conclusion, which is that 3rd and 2 is the preferred ‘risk limit’ in the design of a base offense.
Without scouting opponent defenses, and being able to make a statement about how they defend 2nd and long (6+), I think it would be difficult to say how a team, especially our Broncos approaches the problem of 2nd and long offense. If they view it as an extension of their base offense in 1st and 10, they may prefer the 4yd criteria. if they treat it as a ‘situation’ they would probably prefer the 5/3 criteria (though Burke notes later that shooting for 5 on every play is a break even solution for reality.)
I seriously toyed with including 2nd and long in this analysis, and the only thing that stopped me was doubling the instances for analysis in one post. I wanted to discuss at least some of the details.
Regardless, what I took from it is the importance of having a specific philosphical bent in regards to situational 3rd down football. Execution is still at the root of every play, but probablility enters to help pinpoint and deter risk. To this end, to this end, these are the following situational 3rd downs I have data for:
3rd and 1-2 (47 instances)
3rd and 3 (24 instances)
3rd and 4-6 (56 instances)
3rd and 7-11 (76 instances)
3rd and 12+ (28 instances)
Each will get a separate treatment for offense and defense.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 23, 2010 5:46 PM MDT up reply actions
If someone had the time and motivation
they could actually build a set of characteristic curves for the Broncos. It would have to be done recursively (since success on 3rd down is objective) but you could determine what actually constituted the break even gain for each down/distance combination.
This could be done for the defense as well.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 23, 2010 7:41 PM MDT up reply actions
Great post Jeremy
Your Explosive play opportunity explanation really stuck out to me…. That is curious, why the lack of risk? Could be either McDaniels/O coord didn’t want to risk with ‘new’ scheme installation, or Orton not reading the D efficiently , or a combination…. But man, I love this breakdown, Thanks Mr. B! (It’s cool calling a Bronco fan that, you’re obviously not THE Mr. B, but… ( = )….. A little editing note and question (if it hasn’t already been pointed out)
Under Passing overview of first down – Execution – The second to last sentence;
Many of the sacks came early in the game against Denver,
Come on, who was it against? really though? ;-J
And then it continues to say;
, and 3 of them came on Denver’s first offensive play of the game.
But at least I can figure you meant first drive on that one. he he.
That's quite a long handle there, G Funk. - That's what she said.
First (and only, in our lifetimes) team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! ( =
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jun 23, 2010 6:29 PM MDT reply actions
Just a Guess
I think part of playing it safe last year was Josh’s vision for the future. He knew he wasn’t super bowl bound. You don’t show your hand in poker unless you planned to win and your chips are on the table. My gut tells me that Josh wants to build a dynasty. And Pat’s going to let him try.
I think that was part of running the 5-2 on defense. It’s such a base system — it gets more use in high school than it does in college or the pros. I think Josh is trying to win but he’s also gauging the AFC West and remolding the team to his system.
I also think you’re right about the other part of the equation. Everyone was new and to make “explosive” plays happen, everyone has to be in sync.
I agree somewhat
But I think he was gauging the whole beginning of the season and began to ‘unveil’ some quirks… As long as we kept winning… But once We got past the bye week and lost, it was back to vanilla….. Kind of….
Point is, I wouldn’t go as far as to say “Josh knew We weren’t SB bound” – because one thing McDaniels doesn’t lack is confidence. But I fully agree that he wasn’t really even beginning to show his hand, though We would have seen both hands and then some, had We made it to week ten undefeated. I also have a strong feeling that he and Nolan didn’t quite agree on certain implementations, or situational calls, etc. – and that has a bit to do with the D’s demise. Wink is going to be viewed as a hero, I have a feeling.
That's quite a long handle there, G Funk. - That's what she said.
First (and only, in our lifetimes) team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! ( =
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jun 24, 2010 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions
SB Bound
During the early days in training camp, McDaniels said to the group of reporters, “This is not a Super Bowl team”. The team, even when it was winning those early 6 games, wasn’t in any sense an powerhouse. The mistakes that would later cost games were already, consistently, showing up. I tended to have the belief that while many, including myself, wanted more of a vertical game, unless you can consistently make the shorter passes and free up your runners via the OL, the rest will come only once you can move the ball with your bread and butter plays.
This year will give the team a chance to show that they have grown to the point where they can get their bread and butter plays working and can also mix in more of the vertical game effectively. That’s what the Broncos have talked about during OTAs – I hope that they can achieve it this year.
Gnothi Seauton
Me too Emmett
I just have a feeling that Josh came in, not expecting one or the other, but inside – he is too confident not to think there was plenty of chance to be a SB team…..
Another thing is he is very forthcoming with information (relatively) in interviews and such, and I think about half of what he portrays is exact truth and the other half smoke and mirrors for opponents. So you gotta admit, were we undefeated come week 10 (of course, if if if..) – he would have (even publicly) been singing a different tune about being a SB team, as it were. Hypothetically. Ha ha
I appreciate you bringing my objectivity back to ground level though. (-=
That's quite a long handle there, G Funk. - That's what she said.
First (and only, in our lifetimes) team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! ( =
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jun 24, 2010 12:36 PM MDT up reply actions
WOW
Great post Jeremy! MHR never ceases to amaze.
During most games I try to keep count of how many times we run and how many times we pass on first down. Last year I watched this even closer because I wanted to get a feel for what kind of offense Denver was using. Josh was new and while reports can say one system, seeing is believing.
The move from the West Cost Offense to McDanile’s system is exciting to watch! I like to think that someday people will talk about Josh’s one-of-a-kind offence. One that takes unique advantage of our location and wears down defenses — the McMileHigh. And it all starts with the run.
Thanks for putting in the time on this!
Ryan Harris
Did you notice any change between our wins and losses or the games with or without Ryan Harris?
by ocbroncomaniac on Jun 24, 2010 6:29 AM MDT via mobile reply actions
not on first down.
presumably I will find some correlation in 3rd down offense, and maybe in 2 minute offense.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 24, 2010 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions
Another excellent article!
On the subject of explosive plays….
I felt like the offensive play-calling on first downs last year were painfully conservative. Considering this is year 2 of system for many on the offense, I hope Josh will unleash it a bit more this year..
It got so bad lat year that I cringed when I saw yet another run between the tackles on first down. I kept wishing with my orange and blue heart that he would just TRY something downfield. It was probably my biggest concern from last year.
Here’s hoping we open the gates and unleash the horses this year of 1st down!!!
Future 2010 MHR Fantasy Football Champion! ;)
"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
My feeling is that Orton is at the root of the deep plays
Which is why his confidence this year is pretty exciting for me. It is his call whether the long ball flies, since most every play, even the running ones has an option to try a big strike type of play, even if it is out of a pre-snap check.
Just looking at the cadence of one play ot the next, i really feel like Orton was holding back. I ascribed it to lack of confidence. In his receivers? In his ability to throw it? In his ability to make the right decision? I think it was the latter, and I think he is ready to take some chances.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 24, 2010 1:00 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think he can make those throws as well...
And if Josh’s statements about being more aggressive on offense are true, I think we’ll be pleasantly surprised!
Future 2010 MHR Fantasy Football Champion! ;)
"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

by 


























