SB Nation User Blog: BShrout

Understanding A Reverse

BShrout — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:15:49 -0000

The Quarterback takes the snap and quickly drops five steps behind the line. He meets the Running back just in time to hand the ball off. The speedy runner flashes off to his left, racing for the end of the offensive line, the defense in full pursuit. As this is happening, the Wide Receiver on the left side of the formation, races to his right, and as he passes, the running back . . .

Oh. Wait. That's not the kind of reverse I was thinking about.

More after the jump

    Isn't it terrible how our absolutely awesome defense has to put up with such a mediocre offense? I mean, c'mon, the offense really stunk it up Sunday versus the Colts. The O-line was horrid, missed blocks, clogged gaps, ridiculous penalties. The play calling was atrocious. What's with all those runs up the gut? I mean, c'mon, there's got to be better options. Moreno couldn't seem to hit a hole to save his life, Orton was making bad throw after bad throw. Marshall was the one bright spot -- after all, he got to set an NFL single game record. And McDaniels, don't even take me there.

   Then look at our Defense (with a capital D!). It was awesome. It totally limited Manning. It picked him off three times. They looked sooooooo goood . . .

   Am I missing something here? Wasn't that "awesome" defense the same one that allowed the Colts to march the field and score on three of their first 4 drives? I mean, c'mon, let's strive for a little honesty here:

Indianapolis Drive #1 (after opening kick off): 13 plays, 80 yards, 5:54 off the clock, Touchdown. Manning going 8/10 for 76 yards. 3 rushes for 4 yards. The Colts going 3 for 3 on 3rd downs.

Indianapolis Drive #2 (after Denver went 3 & out): 7 plays, 56 yards, 2:24 off the clock, Touchdown. Manning going 2/4 for 35 yards. 3 rushes for 21 yards. The Colts going 2 for 2 on 3rd downs.

Indianapolis Drive #3: a punt.

Indianapolis Drive #4: 11 plays, 71 yards, 1 defensive penalty, 5:03 off the clock, Touchdown. Manning going 3/6 for 33 yards. 5 rushes for 23 yards. 1 Unnecessary Roughness penalty for 15 yards against the defense. 1 for 1 on 3rd downs. Giving up a 22 yard play on 4th and 4.

Oh, and let's not forget the drive that followed Denver's 11 play, 68 yard drive that burned 4:44 in the 4th quarter to bring the score to 21-16:

Prater kicks the ball 9 yards deep into the end zone -- touchback.
3-10-Ind20 Manning completes a 23 yard pass.
2-11-Ind42 Manning completes a 20 yard pass.
1-10-Den38 Addai runs up the middle for 11 yards.
2-8-Den25 Manning completes an 11 yard pass.

14 plays, 80 yards, 7:19 off the clock, Touchdown, score 28-16.

So tell me again how awesome the defense was . . .

   The intent of this post is not to defend an offense whose execution can at best be called inconsistently poor, nor to bash a defense which worked hard to overcome its early missteps. It is rather to note how perception of the Broncos has reversed in the last year.

   Last year, we had an offense that bordered on being deified saddled with a defense which was often vilified. I heard a lot of "If only. . . " type statements. "If only we had had an average defense, we would have made the playoffs," etc. There was a general perception that the Broncos failures of 2008 were pretty much rooted almost entirely in the defense. It was not until after the traumatic events of January to May that we began to be offered some insights into how shortcomings on both sides of the ball, and in the special teams all contributed to the state of affairs that has brought us to where we are today.

   Now this year, the situation has apparently become a total reverse play. We perceive our team as having a dominant defense that is being hamstrung by an inept offense running strange and sometimes incomprehensible play-calling. Maybe I'm just odd, but it seems like we've made a 180 degree turn here. I'm not sure I can truly wrap my mind around what appears to me to be an oversimplification of a complex game. It just seems to me too easy an answer to lay the credit/blame for any game result on a single facet of the game.

   When the Broncos win, it is a result of the coaches totally preparing the players for the game and making in-game adjustments; it is every guy on the offense doing his job exactly as he's supposed to; it is every defensive player covering his assignment; it is the kickers getting the ball to the spot it's supposed to go to.

   I remember seeing McDaniels quoted in several places as saying something to the effect of "We win as a team, and we lose as a team" (I'm sorry to say that I don't have the exact quote). For I'm of the opinion that there is no truer saying for a football team. The play of the offense can no more be separated from the play of the defense or the special teams, than the successful play of a quarterback's pass can be separated from the job done by his receivers and offensive line.

   I find the reversal of opinion to be a rather amusing example of human perception, expressed through an attempt to understand what is happening to a team that we all care very deeply about. Kinda makes me wonder what we'll find fault with in 2010.

   For myself, while I am in no way happy that we have lost 5 games, I find myself to be encouraged by the things that we've done right and by the wins we have recorded. These things, IMHO, bode well for the future.

   In watching a new culture of team, a overhauled roster, new coaches, new offensive/defensive schemes, be put into place, we've been put in the position of parents watching their toddler begin to walk. We've seen 6 steps forward, cringed as 4 steps went backwards, rejoiced at the next two forward steps were taken, and now reached out to support as another backwards step appeared.

   Take heart, we are moving forward, and will, IMHO, continue to see more and more great things from the Broncos in every facet of the game.

3rd/4th & Short -- Is It As Bad As It Might Seem?

BShrout — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:44:24 -0000

In jpage78's post "It had to be said" a comment subthread was started that talked about why the Broncos keep running between the tackles on 3rd & 4th and short, since that type of play has proven to be markedly unsuccessful. This started me wondering how often McDaniels has called a between the tackles run on 3rd or 4th and short. So, I went to nfl.com, pulled up the Game Book for each of our 13 games and looked at the play-by-play to see how often the Broncos have found themselves in 3rd/4th and short and what play was called. The results might surprise you.

More after the jump.

For the sake of this discussion, I have defined "Short Yardage" as 1 or 2 yards to go. Many teams, the Broncos included tend to pass as often as they run in 3 or 4 yard situations. According the stats posted on the Broncos page at nfl.com, the Broncos have had 185 3rd and 4th down conversion attempts, and have converted 66 (or 36%) of the time. Of those 185 attempts, 40 (or 22%) fall in the short yardage category as defined above. Here are some interesting stats about those 40 attempts:

1)12 (30%) of the 40 attempts were passes.

2)22 (55%) of them were runs.

3)6 (15%) had penalties called on them.

4)Denver converted 21 (53%) of the 40 attempts.

5)6 of the 12 pass attempts (50%) were converted.

6)14 of the 22 run attempts (64%) were converted.

7)1 defensive penalty gave Denver a first down.

8)5 offensive penalties forced the Broncos into 3rd or 4th and long.

Of the 12 Pass Attempts:

1)8 went short right; 3 resulted in 1st downs.

2)1 went short over the middle, and not only was converted but resulted in a TD.

3)3 went short left; 2 resulted in 1st downs.

Of the 22 Run Attempts:

1)1 went around the right end and resulted in a first down.

2)4 went to the right tackle; 3 resulted in first downs and 1 of those resulted in a TD.

3)4 went to the right guard; 3 resulted in first downs.

4)6 went up the middle; 2 resulted in first downs.

5)3 went to the left guard; 2 resulted in first downs.

6)2 went to the left tackle; both resulted in first downs.

7)2 went around the left end; 1 resulted in a first down.

So, of the 22 runs attempted on 3rd or 4th and short, 19 were between the tackles, and 12 (or 63%) resulted in first downs.

For those who are interested, the data above was drawn from the following descriptions of the plays (you might want to read on if you're interested in who did what in short yardage situations).

@Cincinnati
1)2nd Qtr 3-2-Den28 (5:24) Shotgun Orton pass incomplete to Royal short right
2)3rd Qtr 3-2-Den44 (4:28) Orton pass incomplete to Hillis short right
3)3rd Qtr 4-2-Den44 (4:23) False start penalty

Cleveland
1)1st Qtr 3-2-Cle2 (8:07) Orton pass short left to Scheffler for 2 yards, touchdown
2)2nd Qtr 3-1-Den16 (2:05) Moreno right tackle for 1 yard
3)4th Qtr 3-2-Cle43 (4:06) Jordan left guard for 4 yards

@Oak
1)1st Qtr 3-1-Oak1 (6:02) Hillis up middle for no gain
2)1st Qtr 4-1-Oak1 (5:16) Jordan up the middle for no gain
3)1st Qtr 3-1-Oak14 (3:34) Moreno right guard for 9 yards
4)1st Qtr 3-2-Oak2 (2:11) Orton pass to Marshall for 2 yards, touchdown
5)2nd Qtr 3-1-Oak36 (4:22) Moreno right tackle for 1 yard
6)3rd Qtr 3-1-Den39 (2:22) Moreno right guard for 4 yards
7)4th Qtr 3-1-Oak4 (12:41) Moreno left end for -2 yards

Dallas
1)3rd Qtr 3-1-Den44 (3:18) Moreno left guard for 5 yards
2)3rd Qtr 3-1-Dal30 (0:42) Moreno right guard for no gain
3)3rd Qtr 4-1-Dal30 (0:03) Moreno left guard for no gain

New England
1)1st Qtr 3-2-Den28 (2:57) Orton pass to Marshall short middle for 1 yard
2)2nd Qtr 3-2-Den 18 (8:23) Orton pass to Royal short left for 10 yards
3)3rd Qtr 3-1-NE6 (8:08) Moreno left guard for no gain
4)OT 3-1-NE48 (12:10) Orton pass to Royal short right for 8 yards

@San Diego
1)2nd Qtr 3-2-SD25 (10:31) Shotgun Moreno left tackle for 6 yards
2)3rd Qtr 3-1-SD46 (13:03) Illegal shift penalty on offense
3)4th Qtr 3-1-SD47 (9:51) Moreno up the middle for 1 yard

@Baltimore
1)2nd Qtr 3-1-Bal49 (1:26) Buckhalter right end for 5 yards
2)3rd Qtr 3-1-Bal6 (10:51) Orton incomplete pass short middle to Graham
3)3rd Qtr 4-1-Bal6 (10:44) Defensive Offside Penalty

Pittsburgh
1)2nd Qtr 3-2-Den31 (13:40) Orton pass short right to Royal for 11 yards
2)2nd Qtr 3-1-Den25 (2:00) Orton pass short middle to Marshall for 18 yards

@Washington
1)2nd Qtr 3-1-Was12 (0:51) Moreno right guard for 2 yards
2)3rd Qtr 3-2-Den47 (10:13) Simms pass short right to Marshall for 5 yards

San Diego
1)3rd Qtr 3-1-Den45 (12:58) Moreno left tackle for 36 yards
2)4th Qtr 3-2-Den28 (3:39) Orton pass incomplete short right to Gaffney
3)4th Qtr 4-2-Den28 (3:33) Orton pass incomplete short right to Gaffney

New York Giants
1)2nd Qtr 3-1-NYG1 (7:21) Moreno right tackle for 1 yard, touchdown
2)4th Qtr 3-1-NYG11 (6:31) Buckhalter left end for 2 yards

@Kansas City
1)4th Qtr 3-1-Den14 (4:36) False Start Penalty

@Indianapolis
1)1st Qtr 3-2-Den19 (8:18) Buckhalter up middle for -2 yards
2)2nd Qtr 3-1-Ind45 (1:03) Moreno right tackle for no gain
3)2nd Qtr 4-1-Ind45 (0:43) Moreno up the middle for no gain
4)3rd Qtr 3-2-Den27 (13:51) Orton pass incomplete short right to Royal
5)3rd Qtr 3-1-Ind33 (10:10) Delay of Game penalty
6)3rd Qtr 3-1-Ind15 (5:03) False start penalty
7)4th Qtr 3-1-Ind20 (12:28) Orton up the middle for 2 yards

Overall, you can see that 3rd or 4th and short has not been a particularly common occurrence for the Broncos. They have averaged about 3 of that situation per game. Of the 40 plays in that category, 14 of them (35%) happened in two games (Oakland and Indianapolis), while the Kansas City game had only a single occurrence.

Hillis' number was called twice in short yardage situations. One resulted in an incomplete pass, the other in a no gain run. Moreno has been called upon 16 times. 15 of his runs were between the tackles. 10 of those runs resulted in first downs.

Just something to consider.

Not So Far Away

BShrout — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:01:29 -0000

    Experiencing an incredibly busy couple of weeks at work, combined with family obligations, a major home improvement project and an intense coastal navigation class left me with little time to do more than skim the absolutely awesome posts here at MHR, and drop the occasional comment and rec'd. I've very much enjoyed the wealth of articles that have been flowing from the creative and intelligent minds of our members. I've also been totally stoked over the number of members who have taken the leap and made their first posts. Way to go & kudos to each and every one of you.
    One of the side-effects of having little time to myself is that I often find myself skimming articles on the MSM (please do not revoke my membership for this ;-p). One in particular caught my eye the other day. It was an article by John Clayton (please do not burn me in effigy for daring to cite his work). It was titled: "Elite QBs more vital than ever" (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4705986). The reason that this caught my attention was that rarely, when discussing "elite" or "franchise" quarterbacks, the writers rarely define what they mean by the term. Clayton gave the readers his definition -- an elite quarterback has the following characteristics:

1 -- can run an offense that scores 21.5 or more points per game.
2 -- throws for 220 or more yards per game.
3 -- has a 60% or higher completion rate.
4 -- has led 4th quarter comebacks.

    Clayton then goes on to offer a list of QBs that he sees as "elite," and includes a couple that he would consider to be on the bubble. Those QBs are:

AFC -- P. Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Palmer, and Flacco.
NFC -- Brees, Favre, Romo, McNabb, Rodgers, Warner, E. Manning, and Ryan.
Bubble -- Schaub, Hasselbeck (on bubble due to rib injury), and Cutler (was elite in Denver, INTs have dragged him down in Chi)

    Of course, the obvious question that arose for me at this point was "Do these QBs, in the 2009 season, meet the criteria set forth by Clayton, and how does Kyle Orton compare to this group?

Results after the jump

The Data (NOTE: I only looked at performance data for this season in games-to-date)

Quarterback	21.5+ points/game	220+ yds/game	60%+ Completions	4th Qtr Comebacks
AFC
P. Manning	27.6	310.5	70.4	6
Brady	27.9	298.7	65.7	1
Roethlisberger	22.5	286.7	68.9	1
Rivers	28.4	267.1	64.2	2
Palmer	21	211.5	61.0	4
Flacco	23.4	249.5	65.4	2

NFC
Brees	37.0	283.4	68.8	3
Favre	31.1	261.3	69.3	2
Romo	23.2	266.6	60.2	3
McNabb	26.6	243.2	61.4	2
Rodgers	26.9	285.1	65.5	2
Warner	24.3	271.8	67.5	2
E. Manning	24.7	244.0	60.5	2
Ryan	24.7	208.3	59.4	2

On the Bubble
Schaub	23.5	294.7	67.8	1
Cutler	19.6	242.8	62.8	1
Hasselbeck	20.3	217.2	59.8	1
Totally Ignored
Orton	17.8	222.5	62.2	4

The colored cells indicate where a quarterback has failed to meet one of Clayton's criteria.

Several things leapt out at me regarding this list of elite QBs:

1 -- Two are listed (Palmer and Ryan) even though they fall below the criteria level in half the categories.

2 -- Schaub is left off the list, even though he meets the criteria in all 4 categories, and is ahead of Romo in scoring, is ahead of everyone except P. Manning and Brady in yards, and is ahead of 10 of the "elite" QBs in Completion percentage.

3 -- Hasselbeck is described as being on the fringe, even though he falls below the criteria in 3 out of the 4 categories.

4 -- Orton is left off the list even though he meets the criteria for 3 out of the 4 categories.

5 -- So far this season, Orton has more 4th quarter comebacks than everyone except Peyton Manning (though I will admit that Kyle is tied with Palmer on that one).

6 -- Orton's completion percentage is higher than 6 of the "elite" QBs.

Now, am I arguing that we should all hail Kyle as an "elite" QB at this point in time? Not necessarily, though -- depending on how you define the term -- the case could be made that he is growing into the role.

What I drew out of all of this is the same conclusion that I drew when I looked at the various discussion about what it takes to be a "franchise" quarterback. It's largely a matter of perspective and preference. Typically, we all tend to make definitions that raise up our favorite player to the status that we would like to see him hold. Ultimately, my own position is that the elite quarterback is the one who helps his team win games, irregardless of final margins of victory and statistics. In that regard, maybe Kyle is not so far away from elite status as we might be led to believe.

Poll

Is there such a thing as an "elite" quarterback?

A Weird Thought About Losing Streaks

BShrout — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:40:19 -0000

Like every other Broncos fan on the face of the planet, I was devastated last year when we went into the end of the season and blew a 3-game lead to lose not only the division championship, but any shot at the playoffs. I was thoroughly embarrassed, and took a lot of laughing comments from coworkers, including one who is a 49ers fan.

We've spent time looking at the reasons for that epic collapse. We've dealt with the off-season and a 6-0 record to start the year. And now that we've had a losing streak, people are going "Like OMG, the season's over." But is it?

Losing streaks are nothing new to the NFL, and to the Broncos in particluar. In the last 10 years, we've had exactly 1 season in which we did not have some sort of losing streak. Not all of those years turned out badly. Here's how we fared:

1999 - opened the season 0-4, went 6-6 the rest of the way to end 6-10.

2000 - had a 2 game losing streak, went 9-3 the rest of the way to end 11-5 and a playoff berth.

2001 - had a 2 game losing streak, went 5-5 the rest of the way to end 8-8.

2002 - had a 3 game losing streak, went 2-1 the rest of the way to end 9-7.

2003 - had a 3 game losing streak, went 5-2 the rest of the way to end 10-6 and a playoff berth.

2004 - had 2 2-game losing streaks, finished 10-6 and had a playoff berth.

2005 - did not lose more than 1 game at any time, finished 13-3 and played in the AFC Championship game.

2006 - had a 4 game losing streak, went 2-1 the rest of the way to finish 9-7.

2007 - had a 3 game losing streak, went 5-6 the rest of the way to finish 7-9.

2008 - had 2 3-game losing streaks. The first left us at 4-4, the second brought an 8-8 finish.

So, in 10 years, we've had a losing streak of some sort in 9 of the years. 4 times (in 3 seasons) we have had 3 game losing streaks. 2 times we've had 4 game losing streaks. Despite that we finished with a winning record in 6 of those years. We were at .500 two of the years. We finished with a losing record only twice. We made it to the playoffs 4 times, including a trip to the AFC Championship game.

We can clearly see that a losing streak is not necessarily the kiss of doom that many people would have us believe it is. So all I can say is:

Buck up people, cheer the Broncos on, and BELIEVE!

13-3 until we ain't (and it's still mathematically possible)

Perspective on: Learning Curve (A Teacher's Point of View)

BShrout — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:04:29 -0000

On game day, I watch the Broncos play as a fan. That is, I'm often cheering (or yelling in frustration) at my television as each play unfolds. I feel elated when we win. I feel somewhat depressed when we lose. Then throughout the week, I look back at the game, read lots of MHR articles and struggle to understand what happened (and yes this occurs when we win, as well as when we lose), and I try to assess what the previous games may, or may not, presage for the future.

    I approach the task of understanding the past and looking towards the future as a teacher, rather than a fan. For me, the difference is that I look for significant patterns, and try to see if they are the norm, or if they are something that is not following the anticipated pattern. I've been very fortunate to be allowed to participate in the "Upon Further Review" study team. That has taught me much about discerning patterns and I'm very grateful for the guidance of my fellow group members.

   What's been on my mind this week, now that we have lost three games in a row is: "What the heck just happened?" Actually, I've been impressed by the number of quality articles that have been put out these last couple of weeks as we've all struggled to understand the Broncos' woes. I've been amused by the number of folks who have suddenly appeared to say "See, I told you so. We're no good." I've been equally amused by the responses to those folks.

   The questions that seem to be arising are things like: Is the collapse the fault of the quarterback? the offensive line? the running game? the special teams? the defense? the play-calling? the coaching? the way adjustments are being made or not made? all of the above? none of the above? karma? wishful thinking? Just what is going on here?

   From where I sit, what we are seeing is the natural progression of a learning curve. Wikipedia defines "learning curve" this way:

The term learning curve refers to a graphical representation of the changing rate of learning (in the average person) for a given activity or tool. Typically, the increase in retention of information is sharpest after the initial attempts, and then gradually evens out, meaning that less and less new information is retained after each repetition.

The learning curve can also represent at a glance the initial difficulty of learning something and, to an extent, how much there is to learn after intial familiarity. For example, the Windows program Notepad is extremely simple to learn, but offers little after this. On the other extreme is the UNIX terminal editor vi, which is difficult to learn, but offers a wide array of features to master after the user has figured out how to use it. It is possible for something to be easy to learn, but difficult to master or even hard to learn with little beyond this.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve)

   In the rush of emotions that came with watching the Broncos surge out to a 6-0 record, after many folks talked about how terrible we would be this year, and how we'd do well to win 5 or 6 games, it was easy to forget about the issue of a learning curve.

   We'd gone through the trauma of the firing of a venerated coach, we watched a popular (at least in some circles) player depart in a cloud of ill-will. We had almost an entirely new coaching staff. We went through a draft that left many of us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Approximately 50% of our roster was new this year. We were installing new offensive and defensive schemes. The learning curve was striking on multiple levels -- coaching, players, roster, and fans.

   As an aside: we should realize that the term learning "curve" is something of a misnomer. The most typical learning curve looks more like a cross section of the Rockies as they run from Denver to Grand Junction. There are rises, plateaus, and valleys. Despite what many mathematicians and statisticians (apologies to my wife here -- she's a college math professor) would have us believe, the learning curve in reality is not a smooth progression.

Coaching
   Our coaching staff has a learning curve. They are learning how to function together. They are learning their responsibilities as they fit into the over all schema of Josh McDaniels. McDaniels is learning all of the ins and outs of being a head coach. That means he will progress quickly in areas that are familiar to him, while learning a bit more slowly in the unfamiliar ones. He will move ahead for a time, plateau, make mistakes, and appear to regress. The key will be how well he learns from those plateaus and down slopes.

Players
   All of the players on our team were deemed to have the skill sets necessary to play in the NFL. With the possible exception of the rookies, they have all had a chance to learn the basic skill set of their position -- blocking, tackling, catching, running, throwing, kicking, etc. IMHO, the defensive skill set is a smaller collection of skills, and therefore quicker to pick up. Thus we saw the defensive unit surge ahead of the offensive unit in mastering the basic skill sets. Now, here comes the rub. Remember our definition of learning curve: "Typically, the increase in retention of information is sharpest after the initial attempts, and then gradually evens out . . . It is possible for something to be easy to learn, but difficult to master . . . ." IMHO, we are seeing that effect in all three of our units. The players easily mastered the skills with which they were already familiar, but as each game as gone on, the retention of how to apply them to varying circumstances -- in other words, the ability to generalize that knowledge to different approaches (such as Pittsburgh's no huddle approach, or strongly physical defensive line play) -- causes some lags and even declines in performance. For the players, the key will be how quickly they are able to internalize new teachings given them by the coaches and translate that into performance on the field.

The Roster
   Again, remember that nearly 50% of our roster is new this year. That means that 1/2 of our players have not played with the rest of the team prior to this season. I've read repeatedly here at MHR how important team chemistry is and how hard it is to be successful when the players haven't jelled. Well, there's a learning curve involved in that as well. It takes time to reach the point where there is an instinctive trust of the players around you. Now, I have to admit that I have not coached beyond coaching some college intramurals, and PE programs for my students in public schools. Yet, the truth of what I've read from the more knowledgeable posters here at MHR, I've seen on a smaller scale in those settings. I think it's safe to say, from having watched the Broncos for quite a number of years, that when one player doesn't trust the guy next to him to do his job, that player begins to try to do things that are not a part of his own job, thinking he needs to make the play his teammate won't make (shades of Terrell Owens' making statements about how his team would have won if the quarterback had just thrown him the ball). The key for the players as a group will be remembering in every game McDaniels' admonition: No more 'My bad,' just do your job, and by extension: trust the guys around you to do theirs.

The Fans
   Yes, fellow Broncophiles, we too have a learning curve. I'd be willing to guess that the overwhelming majority of us came into the Broncos camp during the Shanahan era. We became, in his early years, accustomed to winning. We became adoring fans of the type of quarterback who scrambled away from pressure and mounted 4th quarter comebacks. All the while, forgetting the struggles he went through to get to his highest point -- the winning of a 2nd Super Bowl. We mourned his retirement, and lamented his replacements. We surged with joy at our first post-Elway playoff game, only to be let down. We exulted over a trip the AFC Championship game, only to have our hearts broken. The point is, we went up and down, right alongside our beloved Broncos. Then came the trauma of the offseason, and we were forced to once again begin a learning curve. It is difficult to learn to trust new coaches and players. It is difficult to learn to take that leap into the unknown. It is frustrating to see a fast start followed by a slump. Yet that is part of the learning curve. Learning the names of the new coaches and players. Learning the new terminology of the offensive and defensive schemes. Learning what constitutes a bad throw as opposed to an intentional throwaway. The reality is that no-one expected us to go undefeated, but we were blinded and taken in by the glitz of 6 straight wins. The key for us as fans, is to learn as much as we can about the coaches, players and schemes so that we can trust that we are a path that will lead us back to the Super Bowl, and so that we can continue to cheer on our Broncos on each and every game day.

   IMHO, we are now in that portion of the learning curve, where the sharpness of the initial learning is beginning to even out and even regress somewhat. As both a teacher and a fan, this is truly the most frustrating time to be watching a student -- whether it is one of my own, or a member of my favorite football team. It is that time when I want to take them by the shoulders, shake them and scream "You've shown that you can do this!!! So, DO IT!!!!!!!!!" (given the fact that doing this to one of the players would probably be hazardous to my health, I guess I should be glad to be living in LA).

   What I have found, in the midst of 20+ years of teaching, is that if I patiently continue to teach my students what I want them to learn, the learning curve will again turn upwards, and (in most cases) they will exceed my expectations. The Broncos started this year by exceeding my expectations. It has not surprised me to see them plateau. And, if McDaniels is as good a teacher as his players and associates say he is, we will see the Broncos reverse this slump and begin to rise once more.

Keep the Faith!!! 13-3 until we ain't (and yes, 13-3 is still a mathematical possibility, so there! :D )

Perspective on: The Red Zone Myth (A Teacher's Perspective)

BShrout — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:17:32 -0000

I was skimming a number of news sites over the last couple of days (I know, I know, I should be assigned detention for this), and I found a number of startling comments about how Denver has been struggling in the Red Zone, about how we get to the Red Zone and choke, etc., etc. Of particular interest to me were some claims that Orton has not performed well in the Red Zone this year.

I found myself wondering if this were true, or whether it was simply more misinformation being perpetuated by people who do not want to credit Denver with having improved this year. My curiosity led me to do a bit of research into just how we have fared in the Red Zone this year.

The Method

What I chose to do was to look at our various drives to see if and when we moved into the Red Zone. The Red Zone for the purposes of this particular research is defined as the 20 yard line down to the goal line in the opponent's half of the field. To qualify as a "Red Zone" possession, the offense has to have had at least one play whose snap took place in the Red Zone. I decided to compare our performance in the Red Zone to those of Indianapolis and New Orleans, since they have set the bar as the two currently undefeated teams.

The Data

The table below reflects the data for Denver, Indianapolis and New Orleans.

	Denver	Indianapolis	New Orleans
Drives	90	84	99
Red Zone	21	29	41
Red Zone %	23.3	34.5	41.0
Red Zone Scores	18	25	36
RZ Score %	85.7	86.2	87.8
Touchdowns	10	16	25
TD %	47.6	55.1	60.9
Field Goals	8	9	11
FG %	38.0	31.0
Other Result	3	4	5
Other %	14.2	13.7	12.1

Drives = the number of offensive possessions each team has had. Notice that these numbers are very similar.

Red Zone = the number of drives which included snaps between the opponents 20 and their goal line.

Red Zone % = the percentage of our drives that included trips into the Red Zone.

Red Zone Scores = the number of times we scored on a drive that included a Red Zone trip.

Red Zone % = the percentage of our Red Zone possessions in which we scored.

Touchdowns = the number of Red Zone Touchdowns that we scored.

TD % = the percentage of Red Zone scores that were touchdowns.

Field Goals = the number of Red Zone Field Goals that we scored.

FG % = the percentage of Red Zone scores that were field goals.

Other Result = includes things like turnovers, missed or blocked field goals, turnover on downs, kneeling at the end of a half or game.

Other % = the percentage of times in the Red Zone in which we did not score.

The table above shows us a number of things:

(1)The number of drives we had appears to be fairly average.

(2)We had fewer Red Zone possessions than either of the other teams.

(3)By virtue of fewer RZ possessions, we had fewer RZ scores.

(4)Our RZ scoring percentage was comparable to the other two teams (0.5% behind Ind, 2.1% behind NO).

(5)Our RZ TD/INT percentages were weighted more towards FGs than the other two teams.

What leapt out at me as I looked at this data, was the fact that though we've had fewer RZ possessions, our ability to score once we are in the RZ appears to be comparable to the two league leaders. What this suggests to me is that our problem is less about being able to score when we are in the RZ than it is about our inability to sustain drives long enough to get into the Red Zone.

Just something to think about.

Poll

In regards to the Red Zone, do you think our biggest problem is

We can't score once we're in the RZ

3 votes

We can't get into the RZ to score

32 votes

35 votes | Poll has closed

Perspective on: Potential (A Teacher's Point of View)

BShrout — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:12:04 -0000

There are those among the Broncos faithful whom, I believe, are convinced that I have taken one too many trips to the Kool Aid well this year, and therefore must be blind to reality. I must admit that I have been a vocal advocate of 13-3, Josh McDaniels, Kyle Orton, and all of the rest of the Broncos' players and coaches. But I'd like to take a moment and let everyone know, that this is the way that I approach every season, irregardless of which people are currently occupying those spots. Every year I believe that we are going to the playoffs, and even the Super Bowl, right up to the point that it becomes mathematically impossible for us to do so. At that point, I go "Well dang [actually the words are usually a bit more . . . colorful . . . than that]. I guess we'll have to look to next year. I've stayed up late at night celebrating Super Bowl wins, and called in sick to work following Super Bowl losses.

Over the years I have rooted for Miller, Reeves, Phillips, Shanahan and now McDaniels as coaches. Morton, DeBerg, Elway, Griese, Plummer, Cutler and now Orton have received my support as our quarterback. The same goes for each of the other positions. Does this mean that I have cheered them on without reservations? Absolutely not. When I was a teen and young adult, I would settle for being angry, disappointed and frustrated when things went wrong. I would hold high hopes for this player or that player, based on nothing more than a "gut" feeling about them. Since becoming a teacher 21 years ago, my perspective has changed somewhat. After the jump, I'll share with those of you who choose to wade through this post, how this has all changed.

    Twenty-one years ago, I became a teacher. Not just any old teacher, but a special education teacher. One major concept was drummed into to me through all of my training and early years. In order to evaluate a student's potential, I was required to document measurable performance. It wasn't enough to just say "I have this gut feeling that a kid can do such and so." It was equally unacceptable to say "This kid will never be able to do this and that," unless I had evidence to back it up. That evidence took the form of charting and documenting objective, measurable behaviors -- such as the level of text the student could read, the types of math problems he could solve, the number of times he cussed out a staff member or a peer. Well, you get the idea. My training is in looking at objective behaviors.

   I have carried this training in my approach to being a football fan. When I want to decide what I see as a player's potential or effectiveness, I go and look up his statistics -- passes attempted, passes completed, yards, touchdowns, rushing attempts, yards gained, tackles made, interceptions, etc etc. Again, you most likely get the idea. So, when I began seeing, way back in the spring, comments about how our season was doomed because of the trading away of Jay Cutler and the signing of Kyle Orton, I began researching their statistics. Those are a quantified, measurable representation of past performance.

   Now, one quick aside. Does past performance guarantee current or future performance? Absolutely not. Past performance, when measured over a long period of time, can only give us a hint of what the person might do in the present situation. It can help us hypothesize to what extent a person will most likely improve. It is a way of building a perspective on a person -- a perspective that requires frequent and continual updating. When this process is used effectively, it helps us build a framework for understanding a person's potential to learn and succeed.

   Second quick question. Is that assessed view of potential, etched in stone? Absolutely not. At best it can give us a view of the person in the current moment. However, a pattern of improvement or decline over a period of time that has remained consistent, can help us temper our view of a person, so as to not over- or underestimate them.

   This training is why I become rather vocal (okay, maybe even a tad argumentative) when I hear an MSM writer, or even worse a Broncos' fan making broad, sweeping statements about how a player is not good without any reference to the pattern of that player's development during their NFL career. Because often times, thos statements are based more on the speaker's perspective about what it means to be successful in the NFL, than in any objective measurement of success.

   This is why I find myself becoming a staunch Kyle Orton advocate -- even though I think there is a great deal of his game that needs to improve -- when people start throwing out comments about how we gave up a quarterback with "true potential" for one who will "never be more than a backup."

   Btw, this is not a shot at any single individual, I have seen that kind of statement from a number of different sources on a number of different sites.

   When it comes to that nebulous thing called "potential," what I personally look for is whether or not the player is improving in the things he's expected to do in his position. I also look at the rate of improvement. If the player is improving I believe I can say that he has potential. If he's improving rapidly, I take the view that he has a great deal of potential. If his statics remain static, or worse yet decline, I take the view that that player is playing at his potential is not likely to improve very much. Is this something that can be taken as definitive and absolute? Not really -- human beings and group endeavors are too fluid and subject to too many variables to make that claim. Yet, at the same time, it can let us know whether or not we're in the stadium with our understanding. I'd like to illustrate this by looking at two quarterbacks -- since they are the ones most often found at the heart of this "potential vs no potential" debate: Jay Cutler and Kyle Orton.

   I will be looking measurable performance indicators: completion percentage, yards/yards per attempt, touchdowns, touchdown percentage, interceptions, interception percentage, and passer rating.

Jay Cutler
Completion percentage (2006-2009): 59.1, 63.6, 62.3, 63.6.
This statistic has remained relatively consistent and static. The low first year is a result of playing just 5 games as a rookie.

Yards (2006-2009): 1001, 2497, 4526, 2046
Yards Per Attempt (2006-2009): 7.3, 7.5, 7.3, 7.2
These two stats provide an interesting insight. Cutler's yardage increased every year for his first three years while he is on a pace to fall of just a bit this year. Yet, his yards per attempt have remained virtually unchanged from year to year. This tells me that he's gaining lots of yards, but having to throw more passes to maintain the ypa.

Touchdowns (2006-2009): 9, 20, 25, 14
Touchdown Percentage (2006-2009): 6.6, 4.3, 4.1, 4.9
This is a significant set of statistics. It shows that while the number of his touchdowns has increased each year, fewer of his pass attempts have resulted in touchdowns.

Interceptions (2006-2009): 5, 14, 18, 12
Interception Percentage (2006-2009): 3.6, 3.0, 2.9, 4.2
This is an intriguing stat to me. While it is true that the number of interceptions has increased each year, and he is on a pace to increase it again this year, the number of his attempts that have been intercepted each year has declined -- though it has jumped way up this year.

Passer Rating (2006-2009): 88.5, 88.1, 86.0, 83.8
While I realize that many folks do not like this statistic, and see it as having little or no validity, it is an attempt to combine and quantify all of the passer statistics into a single score. What's worrisome to me is that Jay's rating has declined every single year.

   When I look at these statistics -- completion % remaining static, YPA static, TD% in decline, and passer rating in decline -- I am led to believe that we are looking at a quarterback who came into the league and played up to his potential from the beginning. In his favor, his interception percentage has gotten better. But overall, his statistics have failed to show improvement. His yards, touchdowns and interceptions have gone up because he's throwing more and more passes each year -- though, in fairness, this year he's on a pace to throw fewer passes than the previous two years. Does this mean that Cutler has reached his full potential? Not at all. It could be that he will begin to surge and improve. It could be that the decline will continue. The only assertion that can be made with any certainty is that his statics have remained relatively constant from year to year. This is why I'm inclined to believe that he may well be performing at his potential.

Kyle Orton
Note: Orton did not play in any games in 2006 and only 3 games in 2007.
Completion percentage (2005-2009): 51.6, 53.8, 58.5, 63.2.
This statistic has improved every single year.

Yards (2005-2009): 1869, 478, 2972, 1838
Yards Per Attempt (2005-2009): 5.1, 6.0, 6.4, 6.8
As with his completion percentage, Orton's yards and ypa have increased every year. He's on a pace to have the best yardage and ypa year of his career.

Touchdowns (2005-2009): 9, 3, 18, 9
Touchdown Percentage (2005-2009): 2.4, 3.8, 3.9, 3.3
This is perhaps, the greatest area of concern for Orton. Remember that he only played three games in 2007. His touchdown numbers were on the rise, until this year where he's on a pace to remain static in relation to the previous year. His touchdown percentage shows the same pattern.

Interceptions (2005-2009): 13, 2, 12, 4
Interception Percentage (2005-2009): 3.5, 2.5, 2.6, 1.5
This is an area in which we see strong improvement for Orton. Each year, he's done a better job of taking care of the football.

Passer Rating (2005-2009): 59.7, 73.9, 79.6, 88.2
Again, I realize some people discount this statistic. Yet, IMHO, it's a reasonable, thumbnail sketch of how a quarterback has performed. As with all of Orton's statistics -- with the exception of touchdowns -- we see steady improvement from year to year.

   When I look at these statistic, I see a quarterback who has improved overall, each and every year that he has been in the league. This leads me to the conclusion that we have quarterback who has yet to play at his full potential. Do we know what that potential might be? Not at all. It could be that this year will prove to be his peak year. It could prove to be that he will tank and go into decline. The only assertion that can be made with any certainty is that his statistics have improved from year to year. This is why I'm inclined to believe that he has yet to show us his full potential.

It is also, IMHO, quite likely that Josh McDaniels saw these same trends when he was preparing to interview for the Denver position, and may well have played a part in his being willing to see Bowlen pull the trigger on the trade when Orton was included with the draft picks.

>>>>>>>

Endzone pointed out very politely, and very rightly, that my choice to use Orton and Cutler as illustrations may have been construed by some as an attempt to pick on Jay. That was not the intent. I merely picked them because their names are the ones that come up most often in this discussion -- the potential (or not) of Orton versus the potential (or not) of Cutler. To try and alleviate that concern, I went back and researched three more quarterbacks: Brian Griese and Jake Plummer -- as the other two Broncos QBs of the post-Elway period, and Peyton Manning -- who is widely viewed as one of the best, if not arguably the best QBs currently in the league.

Brian Griese
Note: Griese played in just 1 game in 1998, and in less than 10 in each of the years 2005-2008.
Completion percentage (1998-2008): 33.3, 57.7, 64.3, 61.0, 66.7, 56.9, 69.3, 64.4, 56.6, 61.5, 59.8
Griese was a roller coaster quarterback. His percentage would go up one year, then drop the next. It remained fairly consistently within the 56.3 to 69.3 range. Showing that he peaked in about the middle of his career then slowly declined.

Yards (1998-2008): 2, 3032, 2688, 2827, 3214, 813, 2632, 1136, 220, 1803, 1073.
Yards Per Attempt (1998-2008): 0.7, 6.7, 8.0, 6.3, 7.4, 6.3, 7.8, 6.5, 6,9, 6.9, 5.8
Another roller coaster ride. Griese was maddeningly inconsistent, and did not appear to grow into a potential.

Touchdowns (1998-2008): 0, 14, 19, 23, 15, 5, 20, 7, 1, 10, 5
Touchdown Percentage (1998-2008): 0.0, 3.1, 5.7, 5.1, 3.4, 3.8, 6.0, 4.0, 3.1, 3.8, 2.7
This was an area of great concern. His TD percentage was never particularly strong, nor consistent.

Interceptions (1998-2008): 1, 14, 4, 19, 15, 6, 12, 7, 2, 12, 7
Interception Percentage (1998-2008): 33.3, 3.1, 1.2, 4.2, 3.4, 4.6, 3.6, 4.0, 6.3, 4.6, 3.8
Again, an inconsistency to drive even his most staunch supports crazy.

Passer Rating (1998-2008): 2.8, 75.6, 102.9, 78.5, 85.6, 69.2, 97.5, 79.6, 62.0, 75.6, 69.4
This thumbnail sketch of Griese's performance would have driven coaches crazy, IMHO. What it suggests to me is that here is a quarterback who showed flashes of potential, but never fully realized it, whatever level it was. My inclination is to see Griese as having a limited potential as a quarterback, but who was able, on occasion, to overachieve, lending the impression that he had a greater potential than he actually did.

Jake Plummer
Completion percentage (1997-2006): 53.0, 59.2, 52.8, 56.8, 57.9, 53.6, 62.6, 58.2, 60.7, 55.2.
This statistic showed an early rise, then tended to fluctuate around the 60% mark. This would suggest a QB with potential who rose to it quickly then struggled to maintain it.

Yards (1997-2006): 2203, 3737, 2111, 2946, 3653, 2972, 2182, 4089, 3366, 1994
Yards Per Attempt (1997-2006): 7.4, 6.8, 5.5, 6.2, 7.0, 5.6, 7.2, 7.8, 7.4, 6.3
Again, we see an inconsistent quarterback who surged early in his career then began to tail.

Touchdowns (1997-2006): 15, 17, 9, 13, 18, 18, 15, 27, 18, 11
Touchdown Percentage (1997-2006): 5.1, 3.1, 2.4, 2.7, 3.4, 3.4, 5.0, 5.2, 3.9, 3.5
This statistic is one that I believe gives us one of the best pictures of Plummer. He struggled to reach his potential during his early years in Arizona, surged quickly to his best in Denver, but tailed off almost as rapidly after that AFC Championship loss to the Steelers.

Interceptions (1997-2006): 15, 20, 24, 21, 14, 20, 7, 20, 7, 13
Interception Percentage (1997-2006): 5.1, 3.7, 6.3, 4.4, 2.7, 3.8, 2.3, 3.8, 1.5, 4.1
This is a very telling statistic. If you look closely, nearly every year, Plummer threw close to one interception for each touchdown.

Passer Rating (1997-2006): 73.1, 75.0, 50.8, 66.0, 79.6, 65.7, 91.2, 84.5, 90.2, 68.8
In this pattern, as with his other statistics, I see a QB who struggled early, then began to improve, albeit inconsistently, before tailing off drastically in his final year. I see in Plummer a QB who had an above average potential but who was inclined to commit as many mistakes as successes.

Peyton Manning
Completion percentage (1998-2009): 56.7, 62.1, 62.5, 62.7, 66.3, 67.0, 67.0, 67.6, 67.3, 65.0, 65.4, 66.8, 70.6
This is a QB who improves, then plateaus for a bit, then improves some more. He had one year where he declined, which was followed by 3 years of steady improvement that surpassed his previous high point.

Yards (1998-2009): 3739, 4135, 4413, 4131, 4200, 4267, 4557, 3747, 4397, 4040, 4002, 2545
Yards Per Attempt (1998-2009): 6.5, 7.8, 7.7, 7.6, 7.1, 7.5, 9.2, 8.3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.2, 8.1
As with his completion percentage, we see some dips in production, which are followed by steady increases. This suggests a QB who reached a high level fairly quickly, and when an off-year occurred worked to improve.

Touchdowns (1998-2009): 26, 26, 33, 26, 27, 29, 49, 28, 31, 31, 27, 16
Touchdown Percentage (1998-2009): 4.5, 4.9, 5.8. 4.8, 4.6, 5.1, 9.9, 6.2, 5.6, 6.0, 4.9, 5.1
These statistics are relatively high on a consistent basis. A few dips along the way, but overall a very strong showing.

Interceptions (1998-2009): 28, 15, 15, 23, 19, 10, 10, 10, 9, 14, 12, 5
Interception Percentage (1998-2009): 4.9, 2.8, 2.6, 4.2, 3.2, 1.8. 2.0, 2.2, 1.6, 2.7, 2.2, 1.6
These stats when taken together offer a picture of a QB who, each time his numbers worsened worked to improve them.

Passer Rating (1998-2009): 71.2, 90.7, 94.7, 84.1, 88.8, 99.0 121.1, 104.1, 101.0, 98.0, 95.0, 105.2
This statistic intrigued me. We see a pattern of surging forward, followed by a drop off, followed by a higher surge forward, followed by a drop, and now he seems to be head upwards again. The picture I get of Manning from all of this is a QB who came into the league and performed at a high level, which makes it hard to judge potential, but who improved his stats after periods of decline, to move even higher. It suggests a player who may be playing near his potential every year, and that that potential is relatively high -- higher than any of the other QBs reviewed in this post.

To Throw or Not To Throw, That is ONE of the Questions (Revised)

BShrout — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:37:44 -0000

    I became fascinated over the last couple of days by the repeated calls for Denver to start throwing the ball deep. I've seen persuasive arguments both for and against emphasizing long throws in our offense.

    The on-going discussion piqued my curiosity to the point that I decided to take a look to see what the tendency in the NFL is, when it comes to throwing the long ball.

    For the sake of this study, I defined "long" as a pass which was thrown for 21 or more yards. I looked at the following statistics for each of the 32 starting quarterbacks: Attempts, Completions, Yards, Touchdowns, and Interceptions. After the jump, we'll take a look at the data.

I looked to see what was the most, fewest and average of each of the categories.

Category	Most	Fewest	Average
Attempts	78	11	24.4
Completions	36	1	7.9
Yards	900	54	264.2
Touchdowns	6	0	2.5
Interceptions	6	0	2.9

When we look at how Denver stands in relationship to the rest of the league when it comes to throwing the long ball, we find that:

1)In terms of attempts, we are slightly below average -- 21 attempts vs an average of 24.4.

2)In terms of completions, we are right at the average -- 8 completions vs a 7.9 average.

3)In terms of yards, we are slightly above average -- 276 vs 264.2.

4)In terms of touchdowns, we are right at the average -- 2 vs 2.5

5)In terms of interceptions, we are below the average -- 1 vs 2.9.

Whether we agree or disagree with the decisions being made by McDaniels and Orton in regards to throwing the long ball, we can see that the results of our plays put us in the middle of the pack with the notable exception touchdowns. The most glaring issue, then, may lie more in the realm of finishing off drives with touchdowns, rather than field goals, punts, or turnovers.

I've laid out each quarterback's stats for the five areas in the table below.

Name	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT	Name	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Brady (NE)	24	6	221	4	2	Romo (Dal)	78	36	900	6	3
Sanchez (NYJ)	19	7	245	2	2	McNabb (Phi)	14	6	276	5	0
Edwards (Buf)	19	5	174	2	3	E Manning (NYG	37	15	499	5	3
Henne (Mia)	16	2	80	1	1	Campbell (Was)	16	3	139	2	3
Palmer (Cin)	20	4	196	0	2	Favre (Min)	29	11	389	5	0
Roethlisberger (Pit)	23	12	439	4	3	Cutler (Chi)	26	9	301	2	4
Flacco (Bal)	27	9	281	5	1	Rodgers (GB)	34	11	420	4	0
Anderson (Cle)	18	4	126	0	5	Stafford (Det)	20	3	102	1	1
P Manning (Ind)	38	10	339	5	1	Brees	32	19	615	6	3
Schaub (Hou)	25	11	434	5	3	Ryan (Atl)	19	6	197	2	3
Garrard (Jax)	30	11	321	0	0	Delhomme (Car)	22	6	207	1	4
Collins (Ten)	16	1	57	0	2	Johnson (TB)	11	4	128	1	1
Orton (Den)	21	8	276	2	1	Warner (Ari)	15	4	116	1	3
Rivers (SD)	33	12	474	1	0	Hill (SF)	24	6	132	3	1
Russell (Oak)	31	2	85	1	6	Hasselbeck (Sea)	12	3	93	2	1
Cassel (KC)	18	2	54	1	2	Bulger (SL)	13	4	139	0	1

I leave it up to all of you to make any further observations regarding the data. I have simply tried to described what has happened in the first nine weeks of the season, without attempting to predict or project what these figures might mean for the rest of the season.

***********************************

A few, further observations, added after the original post:

eams that have thrown the deep ball 30+ times:
1)8 teams
2)42-23 combined record
3)5.25-2.75 average record
4)3 Division Leaders (Dallas, New Orleans, Indianapolis)

Teams that have thrown the deep ball 20-29 times:
1)11 teams
2)51-38 combined record
3)4.6-3.4 average record
4)4 Division Leaders (New England, Cincinnati, Denver, Minnesota)

Teams that have thrown the deep ball < 20 times
1)13 teams
2)36-68 combined record
3)2.7-5.3 average record
4)1 Division Leader (Arizona)

A Tale of 3 Quarterbacks

BShrout — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:23:19 -0000

    There has been a fair amount of understandable concern regarding the way the Brocnos' offense has started out the 2009 campaign. While I tend to not be a believer that the quarterback can take all of the credit (or blame depending on the situation) for how the offense plays, I do agree that the offense is perceived to begin and end with the quarterback; for the quarterback is very often the "face" of the offense. There are definitely issues that need to be addressed. Having said that, however, I'm not ready to give up on Orton, the offense or the season just yet.

    Now I am not attempting to be an Orton apologist, nor am I wanting to gloss over the mistakes that he has made thus far in 2009. Nor am I attempting to be a doom and gloom sort of person who wants to predict that the remainder of 2009 is going to unravel. Rather, I am curious about the difference between our production so far, as compared to our offense's perceived potential.

    Our offensive scheme is the McDaniels' variation of the Belichick offense. I believe it is fair to say that Coach McDaniels' scheme finds its roots in the system put in place by Belichick in New England; in much the same way as Mike Shanahan's offense could trace it roots back to the system put in place by Bill Walsh.

    This being the case, I decided to take a look at the last three quarterbacks to be introduced to the Belichick/McDaniels offensive schema, and how each of them fared in their first full year as the starting quarterback within that system. I also chose to limit the comparison to the first eight games of that first year as the full time starters.

    Obviously, the three quarterbacks being considered are: Tom Brady, Matt Cassel and Kyle Orton. There are some similarities, along with some marked differences, which have contributed to each quarterback's success.

Tom Brady (2001)

   Tom was a back-up quarterback for the Patriots during his first year in the league. He received his opportunity to become the starter following a severe injury to starter Drew Bledsoe. At this time, Belichick was in his 2nd year as the Head Coach of the Patriots. Josh McDaniels was in his 1st year as a Personnel Assistant/Coaching Assistant. Thus, Brady had already spent a year in the Belichick system, learning it's complexities.

    Brady inherited an offensive unit that had a mix of players who were new to the system (RB Antowain Smith, FB Marc Edwards, WR David Patten, LT Matt Light, and LG Mike Compton). Five players (WR Troy Brown, TE Todd Rutledge, C Damien Woody, RG Joe Andruzzi and RT Greg Randall) were in their 2nd year in the system, as was Brady.

    Brady's first eight games shook out this way:

Record	5-3
Completions/Attempts	140/221
Completion Percentage	63.3
Yards	1426
Touchdowns	11
Interceptions	5
Rating	92.3
Team Points per Game	23.6
Passing Points per Game	8.25
Percentage of Points by Passing	34.9

    The Patriots did well with Brady at the helm. They ended the season with an 11-5 record. This was good enough for 1st place in the AFC East. New England beat Oakland 16-13 in the Divisional round of the playoffs. They won the AFC Championship game over Pittsburgh 24-17. Finally, the defeated the St. Louis Rams 20-17 in the Super Bowl.

Matt Cassel (2008)

    As with Brady, Cassel received his opportunity to start due to a season-ending knee injury to Tom Brady. He became the starter after spending three years as a backup quarterback for the Patriots. At this time, Belichick was in his 9th year as the Patriots' Head Coach. McDaniels was now in his 8th year with the team. During Cassel's tenure with the Patriots, McDaniels had spent a year as the Quarterbacks Coach and three years as the Offensive Coordinator/Quarterbacks Coach. Thus, Cassel became the starter as a 4th year player in the Belichick/McDaniels system.

    Just as Cassel had more experience with the system than Brady had had when he became the starter, Cassel's offensive unit had more experience than Brady's had had. LT Matt Light was in his 8th year in the system, C Dan Koppen and RG Steve Neal were in their 6th, TE Ben Watson and RT Nick Kaczur were in their 5th, LG Logan Mankins was in his 4th, TE Dave Thomas was in his 3rd, while RB Sammy Morris, WR Randy Moss and WR Wes Welker were the least experienced entering just their 2nd season in the system.

    Cassel's first 8 games played out with the following results:

Record	5-3
Completions/Attempts	156/233
Completion Percentage	66.9
Yards	1566
Touchdowns	7
Interceptions	7
Rating	83.3
Team Points per Game	21.0
Passing Points per Game	5.25
Percentage of Points by Passing	25.0

New England did not fare badly with Cassel at the helm. They ended the season at 11-5, tied with the Miami Dolphins. They lost the tiebreaker to Miami to finish 2nd in the division and lost a tiebreaker with Baltimore for the 2nd Wild Card spot.

Kyle Orton (2009)

    Kyle Orton came to the Broncos in a trade with Chicago. He entered the McDaniels' system with no previous exposure to it (at least none as a player who was being required to execute it). McDaniels was in his first year as the Broncos Head Coach. Orton had approximately six months in which to move to a new city, establish a rapport with a new coach and teammates, and learn a new offensive system.

    Orton was put in the position of learning the new system alongside an offensive unit to whom the system was also new. Only Jabar Gaffney (4th year in the system) and Daniel Graham (6 years in the system at New England) were regular starters with any familiarity with the McDaniels offense.

    Orton's first 8 games met with the following results:

Record	6-2
Completions/Attempts	170/269
Completion Percentage	63.1
Yards	1838
Touchdowns	9
Interceptions	4
Rating	90.0
Team Points per Game	18.75
Passing Points per Game	6.75
Percentage of Points by Passing	36.0

    How Denver's season will play out in Orton's first year at the helm remains to be seen.

Observations

    What struck me in looking at these starts was how remarkably similar the three quarterbacks' statistics are.

a)Orton holds the edge in record, completions
b)Cassel is ahead in completion percentage.
c)Orton has more yards than the other two.
d)Brady threw the most touchdowns.
e)Orton threw the fewest interceptions.
f)Cassel's rating is lower than the others due to the interceptions he threw.
g)Orton is right in the middle of the group, in regards to passing points scored.

    What this all suggests to me is that rather than being a slow start, Orton is ahead of the learning curve/mastery of McDaniels's system. I am making this assessment based on the fact that both Brady and Cassel had experience in the system prior to becoming the full-time starters, whereas Orton came into the situation cold.

    Does all of this "guarantee" a successful 2009 season? Are there issues that need to be solved? Undoubtedly. Can this team reestablish itself? Quite possibly. Do all of the problems rest on Orton? Absolutely not (try on 27 rushing yards in the Pittsburgh game).

Ranging Quarterbacks, A Comparison

BShrout — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:22:17 -0000

Bob in Boulder, in a response to the post "The Broncos Success - Is it Orton or McDaniels?" raised the question of how Orton's statistics at various ranges compared to other quarterbacks. I decided to take a look at this.

I used the data provided by espn.com's stat pages for the the top 10 quarterbacks (as ranked by yardage on the sportsline.com website). I also threw in Cutler's statistics since someone will undoubtedly raise that question. The data is shown after the jump.

The quarterbacks being compared are: Schaub (Hou), Manning (Ind), Roethlisberger (Pit), Rivers (SD), Brady (NE), Brees (NO), Rodgers (GB), Favre (Min), Warner (Ari), Romo (Dal), Cutler (Chi) and Orton (Den).

Ball Thrown Behind the Line

a)Completions: Most -- Favre (51), Average -- (39), Orton (35), Fewest -- Romo (26)
b)Yards: Most: Schaub (382), Average -- (242.6), Orton (227), Fewest -- Rodgers (147)
c)Completion %: Highest -- Manning (89.4), Orton (85.4), Average -- (81.1), Lowest -- Warner (71.7)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Schaub (7.64), Orton (5.554), Average -- (5.5), Lowest -- Favre (3.69)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- Schaub (4), Average (1.25), Fewest -- 4 tied with 0 (Rivers, Romo, Cutler, Orton)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- 8 tied with 0 (Schaub, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Brees, Rodgers, Romo, Orton), Most -- 4 tied wit 1 (Brady, Favre, Warner, Cutler)
g)Rating: Highest -- Schaub (125.2), Average (95.8), Orton (89.7), Lowest -- Warner (80.7)

Orton was 7th in Completions, 8th in Yards, 3rd in Completion Percentage, 6th in Average/Attempt, tied for 9th in Touchdowns, tied for 1st in Interceptions, and 7th in Quarterback Rating.

Ball Thrown 1-10 Yards

a)Completions: Most -- Brady (114), Average -- (86.25), Orton (83), Fewest -- Rivers (61)
b)Yards: Most: Brady (987), Average -- (796.4), Orton (756), Fewest -- Brees (504)
c)Completion %: Highest -- Manning (80.2), Average -- (69.85), Orton (65.9), Lowest -- Romo (54.4)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Warner (10.86), Average -- (7.03), Orton (6.0), Lowest -- Brees (4.94)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- Cutler (9), Orton 6, Average (5.25), Fewest -- Brees (2)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- 4 tied with 0 (Brady, Rodgers, Favre, Orton), Average (1.25), Most -- Cutler 5
g)Rating: Highest -- Favre (115.7), Average (98.4), Orton (97.9), Lowest -- Brees (79.9)

Orton was 7th in Completions, 9th in Yards, 9th in Completion Percentage, 9th in Average/Attempt, tied for 2nd in Touchdowns, tied for 1st in Touchdowns, 8th in Quarterback Rating.

Ball Thrown 11-20 Yards

a)Completions: Most -- Brees (41), Average -- (31.1), Fewest -- Orton (21)
b)Yards: Most: Manning (740), Average -- (584.6), Fewest -- Orton (358)
c)Completion %: Highest -- Manning (66.7), Average -- (56.2), Lowest -- Orton (48.8)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Manning (12.98), Average -- (10.57), Lowest -- Orton (8.33)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- 3 tied with 5 (Rivers, Brees, Warner), Average (3.08), Fewest -- Cutler (0)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- Orton (0), Average (1.9), Most -- Warner (5)
g)Rating: Highest -- Manning (125.8), Average (96.5), Orton (85.2), Lowest -- Roethlisberger (79.8)

Orton was 12th in all categories except: Touchdowns (11th), Interceptions (1st), and Quarterback Rating (9th)

Ball Thrown 21-30 Yards

a)Completions: Most -- Brees (15), Orton (7), Average -- (6.4), Fewest -- 3 tied with 3 (Brady, Warner, Romo)
b)Yards: Most: Brees (468), Average -- (247.25), Orton (189), Fewest -- Warner (76)
c)Completion %: Highest -- Brees (78.9), Orton (46.7), Average -- (40.8), Lowest -- Rivers (25.0)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Brees (24.63), Average -- (12.89), Orton (12.6), Lowest -- Rivers (6.19)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- 2 tied with 4 (Schaub, Brees), Average (2.08), Orton (1), Fewest -- Rivers (0)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- 7 tied with 0 (Manning, Rivers, Brady, Rodgers, Favre, Romo, Orton), Average (0.83), Most -- 2 tied with 3 (Schaub, Cutler)
g)Rating: Highest -- Favre (132.6), Orton (115.3), Average (95.3), Lowest -- Warner (48.3)

Orton was tied for 3rd in Completions, 6th in Yards, tied for 3rd in Completion Percentage, 5th in Average/Attempt, tied for 9th in Touchdowns, tied for 1st in Interceptions, and 4th in Quarterback Rating.

Ball Thrown 31-40 Yards

a)Completions: Most -- Manning (4), Average -- (2.08), Fewest -- 5 tied wit 1 (Schaub, Warner, Romo, Cutler, Orton)
b)Yards: Most: Manning (160), Average -- (89.9), Ortong (87), Fewest -- Romo 34
c)Completion %: Highest -- Rodgers (60.0), Average -- (35.7), Orton (33.3), Lowest -- Romo (11.1)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Orton (29.0), Average -- (16.4), Lowest -- Romo (3.78)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- 2 tied with 2 (Manning, Rodgers), Average (), Fewest -- 2 tied with 0 (Warner, Romo)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- 6 tied with 0 (Schaub, Rivers, Brees, Rodgers, Favre, Orton), Most -- 6 tied with 1 (Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Warner, Romo, Cutler)
g)Rating: Highest -- Rodgers (143.8), Orton (121.5), Average (94.3), Lowest -- Romo (3.2)

Orton was tied for 8th in Completions, 7th in Yards, tied for 6th in Completion Percentage, 1st in Average/Attempt, tied for 3rd in Touchdowns, tied for 1st in Interceptions, and 4th in Quarterback Rating.

Ball Thrown 41+ Yards

a)Completions: Most --Rivers (5), Fewest -- 4 tied with 0 (Manning, Warner, Romo, Orton)
b)Yards: Most: Rivers (251), Fewest -- 4 tied with 0 (Manning, Warner, Romo, Orton)
c)Completion %: Highest -- Schaub (100), Lowest -- 4 tied with 0 (Manning, Warner, Romo, Orton)
d)Average/Attempt: Highest -- Rivers (27.89), Lowest -- 4 tied with 0 (Manning, Warner, Romo, Orton)
e)Touchdowns: Most -- 4 tied with 1 (Roethlisberger, Brady, Brees, Favre), Fewest -- 8 tied with 0 (Schaub, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, Warner, Romo, Cutler, Orton)
f)Interceptions: Fewest -- 7 tied with 0 (Schaub, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, Favre, Romo, Cutler), Most --5 tied with 1 (Roethlisberger, Brady, Brees, Warner, Orton)
g)Rating: Highest -- Favre (135.4), Lowest -- 3 tied with 0.0 (Warner, Romo, Orton)

Orton only attempted 3 passes of 41+ yards and completed none of them.

Schaub's 100% completion percentage is based on a single pass.

An observation: in nearly all of the categories, in the majority of the ranges, Orton is in the top 10 of the quarterbacks surveyed.

I'll let the rest of you draw your own conclusions.