Playing Four Strong Quarters
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 4:30 PM MDT
in Strictly My Opinion
Email
PrintThere has come to be a widely espoused perception of the Denver Broncos as a team that has a proclivity for collapsing late in the season. I must admit that I have, in the past, both bought into and perpetuated this view without questioning it. The perception of the Broncos as team likely to collapse late in the season appears to have gained much of its support from the fact that they have finished each of the last four seasons by losing 4 of their last 6 games:
2009 - NYG (W), KC (W), Ind (L), Oak (L), Phi (L), KC (L)
2008 - Oak (L), NYJ (W), KC (W), Car (L), Buf (L), SD (L)
2007 - Chi (L), Oak (L), KC (W), Hou (L), SD (L), Min (W)
2006 - KC (L), Sea (L), SD (L), Ari (W), Cin (W), SF (L)
It has been pointed out by some, and quite rightly so, that using a very arbitrary divison of the season for analysis purposes can be misleading. So the question becomes, how have the Broncos performed throughout the season, in terms of wins and losses?
Let's take a small jump, and look at some history.
In order to keep this article within reason, and to be able to compare the 4 seasons mentioned above to similar seasons, I have arbitrarily chosen to focus on the 32 seasons in which the NFL has played a 16-game regular season. It should be noted that one season (1987) only played 15 games due to a strike. A second season (1982) will be omitted from this study since it was also a strike shortened season -- which saw only 9 games played. This will leave us with 31 years to examine.
I have broken the schedule into 4 quarters (after all, a football game is played by quarters). I have also included breakdowns by 1st & 2nd halves of the season, and one for how the Broncos stood at the 3/4 of the season mark. I have also included whether or not the Broncos made it into the playoffs in any given year (it is interesting to note that Denver made it into the post season in 16 out of the 31 years).
The 31 Seasons
| Year | 1st Q | 2nd Q | 3rd Q | 4th Q | 1st Half | 2nd Half | 3/4 Way | Final | Playoffs |
| 2009 | 4-0 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 0-4 | 6-2 | 2-6 | 8-4 | 8-8 | No |
| 2008 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 7-5 | 8-8 | No |
| 2007 | 2-2 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 3-5 | 4-4 | 5-7 | 7-9 | No |
| 2006 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 6-2 | 3-5 | 7-5 | 9-7 | No |
| 2005 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 4-0 | 6-2 | 7-1 | 9-3 | 13-3 | Yes |
| 2004 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 7-5 | 10-6 | Yes |
| 2003 | 4-0 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 7-5 | 10-6 | Yes |
| 2002 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 6-2 | 3-5 | 7-5 | 9-7 | No |
| 2001 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 6-6 | 8-8 | No |
| 2000 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 4-0 | 3-1 | 4-4 | 7-1 | 8-4 | 11-5 | Yes |
| 1999 | 0-4 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 2-6 | 4-4 | 4-8 | 6-10 | No |
| 1998 | 4-0 | 4-0 | 4-0 | 2-2 | 8-0 | 6-2 | 12-0 | 14-2 | Yes |
| 1997 | 4-0 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 7-1 | 5-3 | 10-2 | 12-4 | Yes |
| 1996 | 3-1 | 4-0 | 4-0 | 2-2 | 7-1 | 6-2 | 11-1 | 13-3 | Yes |
| 1995 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 6-6 | 8-8 | No |
| 1994 | 0-4 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 3-5 | 4-4 | 6-6 | 7-9 | No |
| 1993 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 5-3 | 4-4 | 7-5 | 9-7 | Yes |
| 1992 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 1-3 | 5-3 | 3-5 | 7-5 | 8-8 | No |
| 1991 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 4-0 | 6-2 | 6-2 | 8-4 | 12-4 | Yes |
| 1990 | 2-2 | 1-3 | 0-4 | 2-2 | 3-5 | 2-6 | 3-9 | 5-11 | No |
| 1989 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 4-0 | 1-3 | 6-2 | 5-3 | 10-2 | 11-5 | Yes |
| 1988 | 1-3 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 6-6 | 8-8 | No |
| 1987* | 2-1-1 | 2-2 | 4-0 | 2-1 | 4-3-1 | 6-1 | 8-3-1 | 10-4-1 | Yes |
| 1986 | 4-0 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 7-1 | 4-4 | 9-3 | 11-5 | Yes |
| 1985 | 2-2 | 4-0 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 6-2 | 5-3 | 8-4 | 11-5 | No |
| 1984 | 3-1 | 4-0 | 4-0 | 2-2 | 7-1 | 6-2 | 11-1 | 13-3 | Yes |
| 1983** | 2-2 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 5-3 | 4-4 | 7-5 | 9-7 | Yes |
| 1981 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 8-4 | 10-6 | No |
| 1980 | 1-3 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 7-5 | 8-8 | No |
| 1979 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 4-0 | 1-3 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 9-3 | 10-6 | Yes |
| 1978 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 2-2 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 8-4 | 10-6 | Yes |
*1987 was a strike season that shortened the regular season to 15 games
**1982 has been omitted due to it being a 9 game season due to a strike.
Some Observations About the Data
The most encouraging thing about the table above is that it shows, when the dust had settled at the end of the season, the Broncos have had 20 winning seasons in the 31 years listed, and they have made it into the post season 16 times. They appeared in the AFC Championship game 7 times during this span. They appeared in 5 Super Bowls, and won 2 of them. So how did they get there?
Win/Loss Records Above, At or Below .500
| By | Above .500 | At .500 | Below .500 |
| 1st Quarter | 21 | 6 | 4 |
| 2nd Quarter | 15 | 11 | 5 |
| 3rd Quarter | 14 | 14 | 3 |
| 4th Quarter | 7 | 17 | 7 |
| 1st Half | 21 | 6 | 4 |
| 2nd Half | 24 | 4 | 3 |
| 3/4 Season | 24 | 4 | 3 |
| Final Record | 20 | 7 | 4 |
The table above shows that 21 times, Denver ended the first quarter of the season at 3-1 or 4-0, as compared to only posting that kind of a record 7 times during the 4th quarter of the season. Expanding that out a bit, Denver posted a 5-3 or better record 21 times in the 1st half of the season, and went on to post a 5-3 or better record 24 times in the 2nd half of the season. Interestingly enough, though, Denver only posted a 9-7 or better record 20 times during that span.
Perhaps the clearest point shown by the table, in regards to the question of how Denver has performed late in the season is the fact that 54.8% of the time, the Broncos only played .500 ball during the 4th quarter of the year. Add in the 7 times that they played 1-3 or 0-4 ball in the 4th quarter, and we find that 77.4% of the time, Denver went .500 or worse to close out the season. Does the justify characterizing the Broncos as a team that collapses late in the season? Not really. What it does suggest is that historically, the Broncos have not, on the average, played their best ball in the 4th quarter of the year. Rather, they've pretty much played average (.500) ball during that final quarter of the year.
There are some fairly clear consequences of this manner of ending the season:
The 2nd Half of the Season
Not once when the team played under .500 in the 2nd half of the season did the Broncos make the playoffs
3 times .500 ball in the 2nd half was good enough to make the playoffs.
Only twice did the Broncos play above .500 in the 2nd half and not make the playoffs.
14 times, when Denver played above .500 in the 2nd half, they made playoffs.
It seems like a rather obvious statement to say that winning more than half the games in the 2nd half of the season is important if the Broncos want to make the playoffs. Finishing strong shows up even more clearly when we take a look at the effects of ending the first 3/4 of the season in a strong manner.
3/4 of the Way Through the Season
Not once when the Broncos were below .500 at the 3/4 mark, did they make the playoffs.
Not once when the Bronocs were at .500 at the 3/4 mark, did they make playoffs.
16 times, when the Broncos finished the first 3/4 of the season above .500, they made playoffs.
The fourth quarter finish has also played a role in whether or not the Broncos have made the playoffs.
The 4th Quarter Finish
Only twice have the Broncos finished below .500 in the 4th quarter of the season and made the playoffs.
8 times, Denver has finished at .500 in the 4th quarter and made the playoffs (against 9 times of missing)
Only 1 time has Denver finished the 4th quarter with a record of 3-1 or 4-0 and not made the playoffs.*
*it should be noted that that season (1985), Denver finished the year at 11-5, but lost the tie breakers with the New York Jets and the New England Patriots. That same year, the Cleveland Browns won their division and went to the post season with an 8-8 record.
While I am now not particularly convinced that the Broncos can be legitimately characterized as a team with the propensity for collapsing late in the season, I am of the opinion that the Broncos need to improve how they play out the fourth quarter of each season. In the last decade, every time Denver has played the 4th quarter of the season by going 3-1 or 4-0 (4 times), they have played in the post season. Every time they have gone 2-2 or worse in the 4th quarter, they have missed the playoffs. I, for one, would like to see the Broncos play strong football throughout the first three quarters of the season, but I would especially like to see them finish 2010 with a 3-1 or 4-0 record in the 4th quarter. The last time they did that (2005), the Broncos played in the AFC Championship game.
Go Broncos!
50 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
wow
aside from the article itself, I’m curious about tech -
what data source are you using? do you have a homegrown mysql database or something that you’re making queries against? How are you pulling this info together and how are you keeping it from taking many many hours?
The information is pulled from
pro-football-reference.com
You can find data on every Broncos season since their inception. This includes a listing of each year’s schedule, along with the score of each game, and a week-by-week record. So all I had to do was look at the 4th, 8th, 12th and 16th games (and do a little subtracting). Then I used an excel spread sheet to tally W/L for every 4 games. Then clicked on the “Next Season.” I’m a pretty fast reader, so I’m guessing that the actual data collection probably only took me a couple of hours. The article itself took longer to pull together and write.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 5:23 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
The probability of a late season "collapse"
Nice compilation. For the last four seasons, we have gone 27-21 the first three quarters of the season and 5-11 the last.
The probability of that using a 2×2 contingency table and fisher’s exact test is 0.07 (one tail test). That means we can be 93% confident that the difference between the two parts of the season was not just random fluctuations in the data. Put another way, the odds are greater than 9 to 1 that we have had a last quarter of the season fall-off in performance during the last four years.
So it’s probably not just our imagination.
ttthhhhhbbbbbtttttttttttt
What you just did there lumps four years together and makes them the same when they are completely different. 2009 pure fourth quarter bomb, which screws up the rest of your data.
2008 1-3 looks bad but that’s exactly what we did in the 2qtr, we were bad that whole year. The end of season fade is more likely an effect of the schedule and when we plaid certian teams.
2007 we were 2-2 which was the best record that we had for any of the quarters of the season so clearly not a late season drop off.
2006 2-2 is actually better than the 1-3 in the third quarter. Which seems to possibly be a rookie QB who was started late getting his feet under him and surging in the 4th qtr not fading.
It’s not imagination it’s a poor use of stats.
Brian you are officially now my hero
I’m going to bookmark this article so that when we get off to a good start this year, we can get some good analysis of what’s going on instead of, “Yeah but they’re probably going to fade.”
Thanks, FIE, that works for me.
I appreciated your comment in another post that pretty much was the spark that led to this article.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 5:24 PM MDT up reply actions
Great article – I’m wondering if three of the senior citizens on the team aren’t being held out of the preseason to keep the fresh for later in the year Champ Bailey, Correll Buckhalter and Brian Dawkins. If they are truly injured and recover 100% it could be a blessing in disguise for the long season.
I agree
I’m hoping that the coaching staff doesn’t rush anyone back in, and that they keep the players from rushing themselves back in. That would definitely help as the season wears on.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 6:23 PM MDT up reply actions
Coasting?
If memory serves, in three of the eight times Denver went to the playoffs with a 2-2 record in the last quarter, they had locked up the playoff berth early. Of course, I’m sitting in a hotel bar three time zones from home enjoying many tasty adult beverages, so memory may not serve well at all.
I think you're probably right
It would have been the 96, 97 & 98 seasons.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 7:19 PM MDT up reply actions
Hey stat man
Stats are great, but they depend upon context. Change the context, you change the conclusion. As impressive as your stat machine is, it would be helpful to know:
1. How many 4th qtr games were home or away, won v. lost (altitude v. sea level)
2. How many were in domed stadiums
3. How many were on grass v. turf
4. How many were day v. night
5. How many were in bad weather?
6. How many losses involved injuries to key players?
Maybe its just endurance, but I don’t think the Broncos train any differently than other teams. Maybe they should. Football players tend to give up on endurance training once the season starts, but endurance wanes when its not maintained consistently. Another knock on the Broncos has been that they don’t play well at night. Its hard to believe that it could be true year to year when players change year to year, so night vision may not be consistently good or bad. But still, its a theory with some legs. Daylight diminshes as the season wears on. Maybe that is a factor in the 4th quarter of the season. Then there are always the games scheduled at night, like MNF and SNF. I don’t know. But just looking at the 4th Quarter stats alone without the factors mentioned above doesn’t really tell us much.
Interesting questions, I may have to do a little digging, but the info is most likely out there.
Give me a couple of days to dig, then check back here.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 7:20 PM MDT up reply actions
If you look just at home vs away in the 4th Qtr of the 31 seasons examined
remembering that the 4th Qtr in 87 had only 3 games, and 82 was omitted entirely:
Denver has a 43-14 record at home during the 4th quarter, and
a 19-47 away record. That says a lot right there.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 9:26 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
19-47 away record.
Wow, that is crazy and really sucks.
Thanks for the stats BShrout. Even if we finish around .500, I would be pleased if we played that consistently instead of these hot and cold streaks. The Broncos really need to work hard and stop these multi-game losing streaks they have had recently.
Floyd Little: HOF Class of 2010.
2009-10 back-to-back NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009-10 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
No argument there.
I’d be happy with a record slightly above .500 through the 1st 3/4 of the season, if we could finish the season with a 3-1 or 4-0 run.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 9:37 PM MDT up reply actions
The upsides to these stats is that we have gone 43-14 at home.
Denver has 2 away games late, followed by 2 home games to finish the season. The good news (relatively speaking) is that we’re playing Arizona and Oakland away (should be pretty good game weather without a serious homefield advantage threat from the opposing teams) and we’re playing Houston and San Diego at home (which should give us a major homefield advantage with the cold and altitude against two warm-weather teams).
We have a pretty good shot at going 4-0 at the end of this season. The raiders may start strong and beat us in the first game, but that just means that we’ve definitely got a win late season, as we’ve tended to split the series with them recently. The Cardinals may have their QB situation figured out by that time – or they may very well decided to keep Anderson and cut Leinart (no longer a fit with the team if he loses the starting job AGAIN) and Derek could go down at some point in the season leaving them with Skelton at QB (or whoever else they can pick up off the street and throw in there in a pinch).
Houston has been improving every season, but they haven’t had a lot of late-season push. Going against us at home in late december does not bode well for them or Kubiak, and really I just want to see us crush Kubiak’s team. The Chargers are the big questionmark in our final quarter of the season. They have consitently finished strong under Norv turner and I wouldn’t expect a divergence from that path. The small upside we could be looking at is Ryan Matthews hurt by then (as rookie RBs usually hit a wall towards the end of the season because of just how taxing the long and busy professional season is). I’m hoping the stars will align for a strong finish this year, and so far it looks that way (at least on paper).
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 1, 2010 9:36 PM MDT up reply actions
Matthews hurt or gassed by then**
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 1, 2010 9:38 PM MDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what your point is
If your point is that the Broncos as a franchise haven’t historically made a habit of collapsing late in the season, I agree. In fact, I never thought otherwise. But four 2-4 finishes in a row speaks for itself. The Broncos do have a proclivity for collapsing late until this pattern gets changed. That’s at least part of the reason McDaniels is remaking the team by making it bigger on both sides of the line of scrimmage and by improving depth, which I think has been the bigger reason for our annual (until we stop doing it) late-season swoon.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
by spock on Aug 31, 2010 8:07 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Agree spock...its recent trend versus long term historical trend, and McX's team design seems aimed at reversing it.
Nonetheless, there is some good data in those tables to give interesting insights.
The scary thing about those last four years of 2-4 finishes
If you look at the last quarter of those years, we are 5-11. The Broncos went 4-4 at home during that span, and 1-7 on the road.
Our home wins were KC (twice), Min & Cin. Our lone road win was Ari.
Our home losses were Oak, KC, Buf & SF. The road losses were to Ind, Phi, Car, Hou and SD (3 times).
I agree with both of you and idahobronc that from an historical perspective, the Broncos have not “collapsed,” late in the season, but they do show a definite tendency to not play better than .500 ball in the final quarter, and over the last 4 years, that pattern has been magnified.
I also agree that McDaniels/Xanders have been taking steps to break that pattern.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Aug 31, 2010 9:36 PM MDT up reply actions
Spock that is a superficial analysis
That you only get from ignoring the context and lumping together years that don’t belong together. They don’t speak for themselves you’ve got to dig deeper.
2009 was bad we got exposed in the Baltimore game and we couldn’t adjust.
2008 we were bad the whole year, people remember it as a fade because we were ahead of San Diego, but that was only because they were worse. When they brought in their new d-coordinator they quickly caught us.
2007 2-2 is actually the best record that we had for any quarter that year. You only get the 2-4 fade thing because you arbitrarily cut off two wins for no other reason than it fits the pattern.
2006 we actually improve in the 4th quarter which could have been Cutler getting his legs under him, and improving towards the end.
So for those four years that you lumped together we actually find that one year is kind of meaningless because we switched QBs so it may even be an improvement. Two years it was basically doing what we’d been doing all year, and the fourth was a definite bomb. Not the pattern people have been touting.
You can't disprove a general pattern (more late losses than wins)
via piecemeal, case by case argument, especially when the argument is different for each case.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
Go back and look at the data again
It doesn’t show a pattern of late season collapses.
What I was trying to point out is how this belief that they collapse at the end of the season causes people to gloss over what actually happened in the whole year and lump together years that have nothing to do with each other. So I was pointing out how the years you lumped together didn’t show a pattern of late season collapse. If you would like to respond to those points and try to prove that there is a pattern go ahead.
Otherwise you’re not really talking to me.
I see something here
14 times, when Denver played above .500 in the 2nd half, they made playoffs.
No wonder Josh wants the team to play well in December.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Deja Vu
There was an article a few months ago, before the draft I think, where McD said exactly that. A team has to win in the second half of the season to make the playoffs.
yeah I think he said it a few times last year too.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
While I am now not particularly convinced that the Broncos can be legitimately characterized as a team with the propensity for collapsing late in the season
Neither am I, B. Not becuase of any stats, though. I appreciate the analysis and it was a nice read, don’t get me wrong. But only stable teams can be compared in this way, IMO. By stable, I mean a team that has the same basic structure in place during a large portion of the comparison. That’s certainly not the case with our Broncos. There are far too many variables here. There are variables in everything, yes. But comparing a team to itself that doesn’t even resemble “itself”… well, I just don’t think anything can be gained from it.
You could use stats to illustrate trends over the last ump-teen years for somebody like Bill and the Patriots. I’m just not sure you can find any trends or future maybes based on the single year our new structure has been in place. Everything has changed, players and coaches, schemes and systems, attitudes and morale, character and goals. This Broncos team isn’t even apples to oranges to any Broncos team pre-2009.
Additionally, though, I would argue that had you broken it down into halves instead of quarters… the recent results would have shown what we all know to be true.
However, none of that stops our mission of playoffs-or-bust. Err, at least that’s my mission for our team… And I see no reason to think we won’t :)
It's just about time for us to get out there and win a MF Game!
Well
The Broncos consistently have had light, but fast linebackers since the days of the Orange Crush, and over at least four different head coaches, during which time they have given up a lot of yards to the run. The Orange Crush defense was more of a bend but don’t break style. So, I think some stats can give you a good picture regardless of management turnover. Besides, both the Bills and patriots have had substantial turnover during the last umpteen years. Maybe Belichick being there for a while recently has clouded that, but before him was Parcells, Pete Carroll, and others. Two of the longest tenured coaches were Fisher in Tennessee and Shanahan in Denver until two years ago when one of them was fired (let’s see, which one was that?). But I agree, stats can be manipulated and easily challenged. You have to know what you are looking at. Maybe your idea of 2nd half would be worth comparing instead of just 4th qtr, but to some extent Bshrout offered those figures.
A change in upper management is completely different from just changing personnel.
I’m in management. If I go manage a computer company that’s shown a tendency to hire obese workers over the last decade… you can’t put that statistic up on the board and consider it evidence to prove/disprove any forward trend. It doesn’t matter what “Company X” did before I got there. I went there to change things. Truly, changing our upper management will buck more trends than changing the logo or even the name of our team.
Studying the trends of previous management in effort to predict future liklihoods, once a new sheriff is in town, well, it’s just wrong in my opinion, on multiple levels.
It's just about time for us to get out there and win a MF Game!
Alex you would be wrong about breaking it into halves
Over Shanahan’s time with the team 9 times we had the same or better record in the second half that we did in the first 5 times our record was worse but 3 of those years were 96, 97,98 when we made the playoffs. So that leaves us with 2 years that we might complain about late season fades during Shanny’s time here.
Yes folks that’s it 2 measly years.
When I said recent, I should have been more clear. I thought from my post that people would know that I wasn’t comparing what previous management did to what this new management might do. I was speaking of last year and perhaps one year prior when at least some of the same coaches and players were still in place.
All things equal, past behavior is a great indicator of future behavior. I’m just not sure you can say, for example, that because Microsoft always had a tendency to hire married men in their late 20’s that you should reasonably expect for that trend to continue once Bill Gates and his entire upper-cabinet has left. If Microsoft continually performed poorly in breaking into the mobile phone market while Gates was there, well, once he’s gone I think it would be a waste of time to chart how poorly they did, or didn’t do, as a way to argue what they might do in the future. The statistics simply wouldn’t matter any longer. IMO, of course.
It's just about time for us to get out there and win a MF Game!
I get what you're saying but
You’ve reduced things to a sample size that is totally meaningless. Keep in mind the discussion is about the Bronco’s showing a propensity to collapse that’s what we are talking about. Not well it happened one time or something like that. Everyone agrees that last year we collapsed. So the way you’re narrowing the data to one year with McD, because that’s the only statistics that matter anymore is meaningless.
So when you say breaking it down by halves would show what we all know to be true is an absurd statement in the context that you are arguing for.
Absurd? Look, it seems to me that the Broncos have collapsed in the 2nd half of the season for the last couple years. No statistic will substitute for my own common sense telling me that it’s true. As for years previous, again, I don’t care, and I don’t see any correlation. I don’t think that looking at what the Broncos did five years ago will help us understand what they might or might not do this year. This team has no likeness to a 2005 version.
Just to be clear here, there are two seperate points here. One, the Broncos have collapsed in the 2nd half in recent years (last couple). Two, Looking further back than the last couple years is meaningless. And even more specifically, even looking at ‘08 should be taken with a grain of salt. Our new COO has only just begun and you can’t make an average out of one – the one year that he’s been a HC.
It doesn’t matter what the Broncos used to do. It only matters what Josh has a propensity to do. And you can’t make a solid argument one way or the other when you have a sample size of one (one year).
It's just about time for us to get out there and win a MF Game!
From my perspective
either point can be argued persuasively: they collapse late in the season, they don’t collapse late in the season.
What has really struck me (as I’ve detailed below) is that regardless of the year, regardless of the players, regardless of the scheme, schedule, etc,
in the fourth quarter of the season the Broncos have consistently averaged playing .500 ball (56% of the time, 22% above .500, 22% below .500).
Not only that but the Broncos have played very poorly in away games during the 4th quarter of the seasons (19-47) over the last 31 years.
Those two things (.500 in the last 4 games, and .287 in away games) are what I would most like to see changed this year.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Sep 2, 2010 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions
Brian, I mean no disrespect to your or your work and your homework on this. It was well thought and well articulated. I know I’ve been blunt, but bluntly speaking, I just don’t see how what a team named the Denver Broncos did back in the day should make me feel like Iit’s a predictor of future events.
More plainly, it doesn’t matter in the slightest, to me, what our Broncos did or didn’t do in ‘05. We’re under new management. There can be no comparison.
With respect, of course.
It's just about time for us to get out there and win a MF Game!
I haven't sensed any disrespect in anything you've said.
I totally agree that past performance is not necessarily a predictor of future performance. Which makes the characterization of Denver as a team that collapses late in the season a rather puzzling proposition.
That said, what bothers me is the question (as I mentioned above) of why is it that Denver, regardless of coaches or players, seem to consistently play only .500 ball in the last quarter of each season? I simply find that to be a fact that is truly puzzling.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Nice Article Brian! Well done
I REALLY hope that they are able to stuff that turkey this year.
thanks, miner
I agree with you — I want a strong finish to the year. Hopefully the bigger o-line & d-line will help
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
They've collapsed late the last two years
There is no disputing that. And I think that is where the notion comes from.
There's a place out west where the Powder River rolls off the Bighorn Mountains. It's a land of red walls, blue sky, and clean air, where the eagle glides high above the canyons and makes its nest in the rocks that overlook the valleys where the sagebrush and cottonwoods grow. This is ranch country - has been for more than a hundred years.
Well things have changed some since the early days, but there's still a thread of character and tradition that runs true from one generation to the next. You can see it in the way folks out here set a horse; you can hear it in the way they talk. And when the work's all done, there's nothing they like better than to get together at the one room schoolhouse under the red wall for another down home, homegrown, Western Saturday night.
You can always dispute something
You’ll notice the second quarter of 2008 we also went 1-3. We were a mediocre team that whole year not just in the fourth quarter. We didn’t collapse we just kept playing at the same level. Notice 4-4 in the first half and 4-4 in the second half. To be more specific we were crazy that whole year but we finished off losing to Buff who were about our level, beaten by the 12-4 Panthers and the 8-8 Chargers after they replaced their DC. But we racked up our wins against teams like the Browns, and Chiefs, and Bucs. It’s not a collapse it’s a scheduling issue.
The notion also predates the past two years, I know because I’ve been disputing it for longer than that.
by Fan in Exile on Sep 1, 2010 10:33 AM MDT up reply actions
And two years prior, when the switch was made from Plummer to Cutler, the team collapsed.
You can always dispute, I suppose, but what happened the past two years was a collapse. A rose by any other name, as they say.
To your point, though, I am reminded of a Gene Mauch quote:
“Losing streaks are funny. If you lose at the beginning, you got off to a bad start. If you lose in the middle of the season, you’re in a slump. If you lose at the end, you’re choking.”
There's a place out west where the Powder River rolls off the Bighorn Mountains. It's a land of red walls, blue sky, and clean air, where the eagle glides high above the canyons and makes its nest in the rocks that overlook the valleys where the sagebrush and cottonwoods grow. This is ranch country - has been for more than a hundred years.
Well things have changed some since the early days, but there's still a thread of character and tradition that runs true from one generation to the next. You can see it in the way folks out here set a horse; you can hear it in the way they talk. And when the work's all done, there's nothing they like better than to get together at the one room schoolhouse under the red wall for another down home, homegrown, Western Saturday night.
These are the types of pointless posts that drive me crazy
you don’t even try to respond to my points you just say it was a collapse.
If you want to define a collapse as one when the building never really got built that’s your prerogative. For me you actually have to be doing well to call it a collapse. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
by Fan in Exile on Sep 1, 2010 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions
Therein, I believe lies the greatest issue of the whole debate
It comes down to how a person chooses to define a collapse. And both of you, FIE & wt have valid points.
I like the Gene Mauch quote, and I can see FIE’s point about how he defines a collapse.
For myself, I’ve moved away from calling it a collapse to saying that we have demonstrated over the 32 years of playing 16 games in our schedule, that we do not typically finish in a strong fashion — only 22.5% (7 out of 31 — I’m excluding the 9-game 1982 season) of the time did we have a record that was above .500 in the last 4 games.
My question is why this has continued to be a persistent pattern, despite changes in coaches and personnel?
Miller (78-80) had none of his 3 seasons end with a record above .500. Reeves had 3 out of his 12 end with an above .500 record in the 4th quarter. Shanahan had 4 out of 14 end with 3-1 or 4-0 in the 4th quarter. And, of course, McDaniels had his 1st year end in a 0-4 run in the 4th quarter.
What is it about the Broncos that this has been a consistent pattern? And will we get to see McDaniels break that pattern in 2010?
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
we have demonstrated over the 32 years of playing 16 games in our schedule, that we do not typically finish in a strong fashion — only 22.5% (7 out of 31 — I’m excluding the 9-game 1982 season) of the time did we have a record that was above .500 in the last 4 games.
The funny thing is you can say the exact opposite and the statement remains true.
Over the last 32 years of playing a 16 game schedule we do not typically finish in a weak fashion — only 22.5% (7 out of 31) of the time did we have a record that was below .500 in the last 4 games.
Perhaps the best way to put it without any spin is that we typically finish the final quarter of the season in average fashion. About half of the time we were .500, a quarter of the time we were below .500, and a quarter of the time we were above .500.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."
- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
very true
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Sep 1, 2010 11:02 PM MDT up reply actions
I think that there are certainly valid points for and against the “collapse” argument, and I love the historical data in the post. It’s certainly interesting to look at.
I call what happened the past two seasons collapsing. 3 game lead with 3 to play, and you don’t make the playoffs is a collapse, in my view. Last year, whether one chooses to look at 6-0 to 8-8 or 8-4 to 8-8 with no playoffs, that’s a collapse, in my book.
I do think that to say that the “Broncos have always had a history of collapsing” or something like that is completely false, and of course, seasons are virtually independent of one another except for injuries carrying over. That sort of statement would be like saying the Buffalo Bills have a habit of choking in the Super Bowls when they haven’t been to a Super Bowl in 15 years. And in that, I agree with the spirit of many who’ve posted here, including FIE.
But, in the past several years, whether there was a lot of turnover in roster/coaching staff or not, the Broncos haven’t gotten it done in the end. No matter who the players are, if you need to win one game out of 3 or one game out of 4 or whatever, that, to me, is a collapse.
There's a place out west where the Powder River rolls off the Bighorn Mountains. It's a land of red walls, blue sky, and clean air, where the eagle glides high above the canyons and makes its nest in the rocks that overlook the valleys where the sagebrush and cottonwoods grow. This is ranch country - has been for more than a hundred years.
Well things have changed some since the early days, but there's still a thread of character and tradition that runs true from one generation to the next. You can see it in the way folks out here set a horse; you can hear it in the way they talk. And when the work's all done, there's nothing they like better than to get together at the one room schoolhouse under the red wall for another down home, homegrown, Western Saturday night.
This is where I think that we won't come to an agreement
Because I can’t label 2008 a collapse. We just were never that good. The problem I have with labeling that a collapse it that it prevents IMO, a more complete analysis both of the past and of the current season.
I would rather have someone say, something like we started off 6-3 and this is how we match up against the rest of the schedule…
Than have a stupid post about we started off 6-3 but the last four years we’ve finished 2-4 so maybe we’ll collapse again. That would drive me crazy, because it’s the type of thing I saw too much of last year.
Yes
To your last question. McD will break that pattern this year. Go Broncos.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
