Reading the Broncos Numbers

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,729
Mansfield MA
Some good stuff in there. The historical perspective on Manning's struggles against the Pats is interesting, though he's been better since joining Denver.
 
I disagree Denver is vulnerable to the run, however: they're #1 in rush yards / game against, just .1 YPC off the lead in YPC against, and #1 in adjusted line yards against per FO. I think you may be confusing the causation arrow when it comes to the number of rushing attempts.
 

Curtis Pride

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
1,231
Watertown, MA
SN,
 
Upon further review, I agree: Denver's defense isn't that vulnerable against the run. But they do allow some long runs, and the Seahawks still won despite averaging 3.5 YPC, just 0.1 more than Denver's YPC against.  Kansas City had more success, running the ball at 4.3 YPC (about league average). 
 
The way I look at it is that if the Pats were able to generate 28 rushes, they would be having some success with it.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,729
Mansfield MA
Curtis Pride said:
SN,
 
Upon further review, I agree: Denver's defense isn't that vulnerable against the run. But they do allow some long runs, and the Seahawks still won despite averaging 3.5 YPC, just 0.1 more than Denver's YPC against.  Kansas City had more success,
running the ball at 4.3 YPC (about league average). 
They haven't allowed a run longer than 25 yards this year, so I don't know what you mean with respect to long runs. Denver did a good job on the RBs in both those games - Lynch had 26 carries for 88 yards and Davis 22 for 79, but both Seattle and KC had 40+ rushing yards from their QBs, something that Pats obviously can't expect.
 
Curtis Pride said:
The way I look at it is that if the Pats were able to generate 28 rushes, they would be having some success with it.
I think this is right - if the Pats run a lot, it presumably means that a) they're generating enough first downs that they have opportunity to run, b) they're running well enough that they haven't abandoned the run, c) they're winning or the game is close enough that they don't have to be one-dimensional. A lot of rush attempts are a symptom of a game that's going well, but I see it as more a consequence than a cause.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,296
Curtis Pride said:
SN,
 
Upon further review, I agree: Denver's defense isn't that vulnerable against the run. But they do allow some long runs, and the Seahawks still won despite averaging 3.5 YPC, just 0.1 more than Denver's YPC against.  Kansas City had more success, running the ball at 4.3 YPC (about league average). 
 
The way I look at it is that if the Pats were able to generate 28 rushes, they would be having some success with it.
There could be a lot of reasons why the Pats may generate 28 rushes; one of them is that the game is (miraculously) a blowout, and the pats are running the clock down in the second half. Such a situation would not reflect on the success of the rushing attack at all.
 
Denver's success rate against the run is 64.9 percent. In other words, about two thirds of all rushes against Denver result in a worse position for the opposing offense. If Denver were vulnerable to the run, one would expect that more rushes would result in a better position for the opposing offense to score.
 
They are also really successful in stopping most pass plays, but they are only average at preventing points via the pass. Such evidence suggests that the secondary may be vulnerable to deep passing attempts, and that Denver relies on its pass rush to prevent such plays. In other words, Denver is more vulnerable via the pass than the rush.

EDIT: That is to say, not very vulnerable at all. As an aside,  50 percent of turnover rate may be random variation unrelated to talent.