The use of DVOA is fairly widespread here. While it has caveats, there's no point in calling out a poster for using it as a quick metric.
This is...mind blowing.The use of DVOA is fairly widespread here. While it has caveats, there's no point in calling out a poster for using it as a quick metric.
They aren't running the ball as well for sure over the last month or so, and the loss of Anderson isn't the fundamental problem. Their TOP is down modestly, but they weren't a good TOP team last year either (26th in TOP/drive vs. 23rd last year). They dont convert third downs this year, but they didn't convert third downs either last year. They werent a top running offense last year either, just sort of OK at it. But that pass offense last year was so putrid that I don't think the offense as a whole is significantly worse. Siemien probably outperformed the first month of the year, but they probably aren't quite as bad of a running team as they've been the last month either. The glaring difference to me just seems to be you can attack them on defense with running backs this year. The offense was really bad last year, it was just covered up by the defense making a zillion plays.My biggest concern on offense if I'm Denver is the run game. Last year they were a bit above middle of the league in YPA (13th) at 4.2, this year they are 27th at 3.8. It's tough to win when you can't run the ball and have a below average passing game. They can't control TOP at all, and that defense is starting to wear down accordingly.
Add in the big drop off in run defense, and this seems like a much weaker team than last year.
Right last year they should have lost at least 2 more regular season games, and probably like 4 more.They aren't running the ball as well for sure over the last month or so, and the loss of Anderson isn't the fundamental problem. Their TOP is down modestly, but they weren't a good TOP team last year either (26th in TOP/drive vs. 23rd last year). They dont convert third downs this year, but they didn't convert third downs either last year. They werent a top running offense last year either, just sort of OK at it. But that pass offense last year was so putrid that I don't think the offense as a whole is significantly worse. Siemien probably outperformed the first month of the year, but they probably aren't quite as bad of a running team as they've been the last month either. The glaring difference to me just seems to be you can attack them on defense with running backs this year. The offense was really bad last year, it was just covered up by the defense making a zillion plays.
I don't think their running game was borderline top 10 last year and I don't think it has been borderline bottom five so far this year, so I think that's probably where the disconnect is. Balance can be an issue, sure, but its not really being reflected in component stats (TOP, yards per play, points per drive, yards per drive, 3rd down conversion, etc). So I remain pretty skeptical that the offense has taken a major step back. The regression on run defense and defending running backs seems much more steep and clear cut than any differences in offensive performance.Because things don't happen in a vacuum, Stitch. You know that.
First, seasons ebb and flow. Always have, always will. Who a team was 6 weeks ago doesn't make them the same team today. The Broncos DVOA offense is anchored by the first four 4 games of the season where they averaged 28 points a game. In their last 5 games, they're averaging 20 points a game. Against defensive juggernauts like the Texans, Falcons, Chargers, and Raiders. You know, teams that are in the bottom half or potentially bottom 5 defenses in the league.
Why they've slowed is a combination of a ton of things, but none of them are pertinent to this discussion. What is pertinent is that the 20 points a game is a solid 2+ points lower then what the Denver offense averaged last year.
Again, things don't happen in a vacuum. The passing game is below average this year. It was bad last year. In both situations, a below average or bad passing team needs a solid running game to bail them out. Going from a borderline top 10 rushing team to a borderline bottom 5 rushing team is a big fucking deal. Its an even bigger deal when you have a shitty passing offensive that needs to be bailed out by that running game.
"Their running game is worse, but their passing game is better, so...even tradeoff!" is a super oversimplification, and one that doesn't work. It's a solid example why using DVOA in a vacuum is disingenuous at best and offensively lazy at worst. I don't blame you for not wanting to spend several hours breaking down film to make your point to some random schmuck online. But using a generic measurement with little context doesn't provide much more value then "a one lined unsourced post".
Not sure what you're even objecting to. I see DVOA used time and time again across threads throughout this section of the board. All the time.This is...mind blowing.
It's so ridiculous I've written and deleted a response 4 times because I'm not sure how to respond to its ridiculousness.
Well played.
The Bronco offense did not average 28 points per game in the first four games.Because things don't happen in a vacuum, Stitch. You know that.
First, seasons ebb and flow. Always have, always will. Who a team was 6 weeks ago doesn't make them the same team today. The Broncos DVOA offense is anchored by the first four 4 games of the season where they averaged 28 points a game. In their last 5 games, they're averaging 20 points a game. Against defensive juggernauts like the Texans, Falcons, Chargers, and Raiders. You know, teams that are in the bottom half or potentially bottom 5 defenses in the league.
Correct, they scored 111 points, but they had 2 defensive TDs leading to 15 points, so it was more like 24 per gameThe Bronco offense did not average 28 points per game in the first four games.
Regarding the running game, if you use YPC (as incomplete as a stat as all the other ones, I suppose) the running game is absolutely a borderline top 10 team last year and a borderline bottom 5 team this year.I don't think their running game was borderline top 10 last year and I don't think it has been borderline bottom five so far this year, so I think that's probably where the disconnect is. Balance can be an issue, sure, but its not really being reflected in component stats (TOP, yards per play, points per drive, yards per drive, 3rd down conversion, etc). So I remain pretty skeptical that the offense has taken a major step back. The regression on run defense and defending running backs seems much more steep and clear cut than any differences in offensive performance.
DVOA in a vacuum is flawed, of course. I was trying to use it in the same context as you are using "borderline top ten" or "borderline bottom five", just to give an approximation of what we are looking at. In this case I think its a pretty good approximation of the Denver offense to date, solidly below average (Id agree its been worse the last month than the first month). I would argue that DVOA is going to be, on the whole, more accurate at describing a team's offensive or defensive performance than a year to year comparison of an unadjusted points per game stat.
bronco fan hereIf anybody here has watched Denver play enough to actually have an opinion that's more valuable than DVOA or tradiitonal stats I'd love to hear it. (I know a few folks may have). The problem is with 32 teams it's just freaking hard to see any one team more than once or twice.
I've seen most of Denver only twice and that's not enough for me to draw any conclusions, especially because I thought they looked pretty good against Carolina and pretty bad last night.
Seattle Has a QBRegarding the running game, if you use YPC (as incomplete as a stat as all the other ones, I suppose) the running game is absolutely a borderline top 10 team last year and a borderline bottom 5 team this year.
This team has been noticeably poorer on offense in the last handful of games then the first handful. Their TOP is down (which can be attributed to their defense as well as their poor 3rd down conversions), first downs per play, plays per game (again, this can be a symptom of a worse defense, but - like basketball - still a useful metric nonetheless) and this is against some pretty mediocre defenses. Add in the more simple stats like PPG and it, and I think theres a case to be made that this offense has been trending in the wrong direction for over a month with no signs of pulling itself out of its tailspin.
The biggest issue is that they aren't able to maintain a legendary caliber defense for 2 straight years. I agree, no doubt about it. But that was probably never going to be feasible. When you combine an offense performing worse across most metrics (over the last 5 weeks) with the defensive play, you have...well, the Minnesota Vikings. Or LA Rams. Or Seattle Seahawks.
One of those fucking teams.
I'm not sure Joe Thomas is good enough at this point to give Cleveland anywhere close to anything but your best player. I could be wrong; I'm mostly going off of the little bit of Browns football I suffered through Thursday.Seattle Has a QB
what Denver needs is to trade simean or lynch stick with 1 guy trade whatever Cle wants ex v miller for j Thomas sign D Poe NT kc if he hit the market Cut T J Ward Sign Eric Berry get more speed Cut Tailb sign CB S Gilmore Buff Cut D Ware Trade Shaq Barnett for a 3rd or 2nd if he makes the pro bowl to philly Sign C Keenum as a 2 qb knows kubiak playbook + hot wife
That would be a great game to break out the sneaky "run the ball into the line 25 times" offense! They'll never expect that.Agreed. If the Pats win in Denver there is no race for the 1 seed. But if they do, and then have to win in Miami in week 17... ruh roh.
I am not ready to give the AFC West division leader the 1 seed just yet. Denver plays KC twice and the Raiders have games left versus KC and Denver. I think it is unlikely one team runs the table considering KC and Oak still have a game against SD as well which is a tough division opponent.I can see the Patriots losing two more games (not just see it, expect it) to Denver and Miami. I also would not be surprised by a loss to Baltimore. Worst case scenario is that leaves them with five losses, is that good enough for the two seed? They would still most likely beat the AFC North and South division winner's record, so that answers my own question, but at this point I think the winner of the West will get home field throughout. All three of those home fields are tough places to win in for the visitor.
I am not ready to give the AFC West division leader the 1 seed just yet. Denver plays KC twice and the Raiders have games left versus KC and Denver. I think it is unlikely one team runs the table considering KC and Oak still have a game against SD as well which is a tough division opponent.
Wouldn't be surprised to see two road favorites if the Ravens win the North.Yeah Texans probably had to win last night to change that calculus. Steelers or Ravens running the table probably not quite enough and probably a little too much to ask of those teams anyways. AFC wild card weekend could be pretty fun this year.
Maybe I'm being dense, but what are the odds of this playing in? A tiebreaker with Denver will be decided by H2H, and common games seems likely to decide the other two (see below).I agree, very likely the AFC West winner sits at best case 12 or more likely 11 wins considering how they all have to play each other and four of the top 6 or 7 teams in the conference are in the West. The West winner will have a tiebreaker on New England with SOV, so the Pats likely need to only lose one or perhaps two games.
At the same time, it is very hard to see a scenario where the two bye teams are not the Pats & the West champ. Perhaps Pittsburgh will pull their heads out of their asses, but it sure seems likely that the divisional round is going to be the Pats & 3 AFC West teams.
Exactly. The hope is that the AFC West teams beat each other up and leave each team with 4-5 losses. The worst case scenario is someone taking the reigns of the division and going on a huge run.I am not ready to give the AFC West division leader the 1 seed just yet. Denver plays KC twice and the Raiders have games left versus KC and Denver. I think it is unlikely one team runs the table considering KC and Oak still have a game against SD as well which is a tough division opponent.
Yes and true, but on the flip side they had zero business winning the Carolina gameGoing into the weekend, the two easiest games - and really the only two non-really tough games (unless you count @SD) - on KC's schedule were the home games vs TB and TEN. Dropping the game vs TB must be killing Chiefs fans.