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.
Assorted AFC Thoughts
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
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.
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.
DVOA actually has Denver ranked 18th in rushing, vs. 20th last year.
But as KFP says, seasons ebb and flow. CJ Anderson is hurt. The last 2 games they have run 37 times for 90 yards, 2.43 YPC. In the 7 previous games they averaged 4.11 YPC. Last year they averaged 4.18 YPC. If their running game is like the last couple weeks they won't be close to a contender. If they run like they did the first 7 games, they'll be fine.
But as KFP says, seasons ebb and flow. CJ Anderson is hurt. The last 2 games they have run 37 times for 90 yards, 2.43 YPC. In the 7 previous games they averaged 4.11 YPC. Last year they averaged 4.18 YPC. If their running game is like the last couple weeks they won't be close to a contender. If they run like they did the first 7 games, they'll be fine.
Right last year they should have lost at least 2 more regular season games, and probably like 4 more.
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.
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.
Using DVOA to make a point is also not the same as endorsing it as the be-all to end all of metrics, either. Not sure if it's more or less flawed than the various flavors of WAR in baseball, but that doesn't mean it's use is meaningless.
If you're going to criticize someone for using DVOA, then you'll have a lot of posters to criticize. Because I see it used all the time.
Any team that can throw our offense off its game concerns me. We've seen enough Ravens playoff games to know what an elite pass rushing defense with physical corners can do to our offense come playoff time. I wouldn't be "scared" of Denver, particularly in Foxboro, but there are probably other teams i'd rather face.
If 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.
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.
The Bronco offense did not average 28 points per game in the first four games.
Correct, they scored 111 points, but they had 2 defensive TDs leading to 15 points, so it was more like 24 per game
Ok, fair.
I suppose we should take away the fumble TD in the last 5 games, which puts them at basically 19 a game over the last 5 weeks.
I suppose we should take away the fumble TD in the last 5 games, which puts them at basically 19 a game over the last 5 weeks.
I show 6 defensive/st tds and a safety for the Broncos last year and 3 defensive TDs this year.
Which, I think puts them at 19.4 offensive PPG in 2015 (355-44/16) and 21.4 offensive PPG so far in 2016 (im not going back and counting conversions so may be off slightly).
For the last five weeks they'd be at 19.2 offensive PPG.
FWIW, I think there's a lot of variance in this stat anyways.
Falcons defense is pretty bad. Raiders defense is pretty bad but should be better. Texans defense is OK. Chargers defense is decent, but you should be able to run on them.
Which, I think puts them at 19.4 offensive PPG in 2015 (355-44/16) and 21.4 offensive PPG so far in 2016 (im not going back and counting conversions so may be off slightly).
For the last five weeks they'd be at 19.2 offensive PPG.
FWIW, I think there's a lot of variance in this stat anyways.
Falcons defense is pretty bad. Raiders defense is pretty bad but should be better. Texans defense is OK. Chargers defense is decent, but you should be able to run on them.
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.
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.
The last handful of games also included close to two games with the backup quarterback and a road game on Thursday without a head coach. I agree that the offense hasn't been as strong as the first three weeks and that the running game has been worse than last year, but Im not inclined to throw the first three weeks out entirely. Their passing game has been much better than last year with Siemian healthy and I don't even think he's that good, its just he's an upgrade over the sub-replacement level play they got at the position last year. It is really remarkable they were able to win a Super Bowl in this offensive era with the absolute worst passing game in the league, stars really have to align to do that.
bronco fan here
as much as goodell loves denver and he does i dont think he can save them unless they win tomm we were exported last week by oakland as they ran the perfect game plan if denver wins tomm u and Oakland need to worry as Denver gets tailb Marshall at 100% and wolfe back for KC JAX TENN at 7-3 which would mean if they avoid a tenn loss they still go in to ne week at 10-3 with the @ KC and oak much more imp games
as barring a brady or gronk inj u win at least 13 games means denver has to win out to get homefield and that will not happhed
to awsner the q if denver runs the ball well and get to they are 5-0 first 4 weeks + hou if not they are 1-3
Simean is better than 2015 manning but at best he is josh mccown or brad johnson
sorry for the long post i think unless Oakland really gaggeds they win the west
what u need is den to get the 5 seed indy wins the south kicks denver ass they play denver the best of all 32 teams pitt to win the north so that only OAK with prevent del rio rem 07 div round i do can stop u from 51
if denver can get the 2 seed and u have to play balt in the div and Den in the AFCGC that will rough u up for SB 51 aga DAL or SEA
here the scary part denver if they get in with that def can win anywhere in the AFC on the road honesly i expect 11-5 a 5 seed Oakland wins tiebreakr Den beats HOU in round 1 then loses 28-21 @ ne
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
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.
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.
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.
Too soon?
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.
You see them potentially losing at home to Baltimore? I mean we all get nervous for the games but that is crazy talk
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.
11-5 probably gets a bye. One of Ravens/Steelers/Texans/Titans/Colts have to win out (slightly more complicated but that's basically what needs to happen). Expecting to lose both at Denver and at Miami is pretty pessimistic, small chance they lose either to Ravens or @ NYJ next week but pretty unlikely. Pats are still pretty clear favorites for the one seed. Not sure they technically control their own destiny, but super unlikely the Raiders win out.
AFC West schedules are brutal down the stretch. KC's easiest game is vs. Titans. Raiders have all three divisional road games left. Broncos home games are Raiders, Patriots, Chiefs. Decent chance 12-4 wins the west outright.
My bet is 13-3 and 1 seed with the loss coming at Miami with everything wrapped up by week 17. Denver isnt a cakewalk or anything, but Pats are going to win that game most of the time.
AFC West schedules are brutal down the stretch. KC's easiest game is vs. Titans. Raiders have all three divisional road games left. Broncos home games are Raiders, Patriots, Chiefs. Decent chance 12-4 wins the west outright.
My bet is 13-3 and 1 seed with the loss coming at Miami with everything wrapped up by week 17. Denver isnt a cakewalk or anything, but Pats are going to win that game most of the time.
Last edited:
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.
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).
- Patriots vs Chiefs:
- Patriots are 2-0 with games left vs. NYJ/DEN/NYJ
- Chiefs are 1-2 with games left vs. DEN/DEN
- to tie, Patriots would have to drop two of those three and the Chiefs would have to sweep Denver (or lose all three with KC splitting). Then the Chiefs would have to lose one more than the Patriots of the remaining non-common games (to have a tie in the first place).
- Patriots vs. Raiders:
- Patriots are 1-1 with games left vs. BUF/BAL/DEN
- Raiders are 3-0 with games left vs. BUF/DEN
- to tie, Patriots would have to sweep with the Raiders splitting or go 2-1 with the raiders going 0-2. Then the Patriots would have to lose one more than the Raiders of the remaining non-common games (to have a tie in the first place).
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.
Going 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.