SB Nation User Blog: Claus Vestergaard

Ironic, in a way.

Claus Vestergaard — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:27:21 -0000

I was actually planning on making a "Cutler traded for Shaun Rogers and Brady Quinn"-post today. For me, it's april first. Now before you go check, I might as well tell you, that the post on denverbroncos.com is stamped at March 31st.

This blows! McDaniels is on the hot seat. He has now used up all credit he might have had in good will. I refuse to blame this on Cook og Jay. Let's face it, there's maybe 10 guys out there, who can play the position well - on the f'ing PLANET! When you are the employer of such a guy, I don't care how you keep him happy. Just make sure, that you do!

I mean, this is basic general managing and head coaching 101. Pro Bowl quaterbacks under the age of 30 are worth keeping - Is this really rocket science?! This is just a bad, bad call by both McD and Bowlen. When it comes as far as this: If it's McD, that is Jays problem, then McD has to go. There are further between top tier quarterbacks than between top tier coaches. I'm sorry, but that's as simple as it gets. Besides, the situation is so rediculous, the quarterback, at age 25, has more experience than the coach!! This is a fucking no brainer.

I don't know. I'm still clinging on to the April fools-thing...

To all of you who loves footballstats!

Claus Vestergaard — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:54:34 -0000

I check out the blog over at pro-football-reference.com on an almost hourly basis, and today the great Chase Stuart tossed an extremely well-written post. He basically tries to acces Jay Cutlers value in case of a trade, or in other words; on-field production potential. He does it by cooking up a nice little set of stats and metrics, compares Cutlers output to other players at the position, and comes to a very interesting conclusion.

I should say that this becomes pretty math-nerdy, but i don't think the post will suffer from you skipping the paragraphs with all the technicalities.

I'm just urging you to spend 15 minutes of your busy day to read this - allthough I don't think it will make you feel any better about the mess in Dove Valley. Or Maybe it will, if you're the kind of guy who likes multiple first day draftpicks.

And now a goodnight from Denmark!

Have this guy on your FA-radar!

Claus Vestergaard — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:01:09 -0000

Remember the 2008 Denver Special Teams? I do... It sucked. That wasn't only because of Praters 40-curse.

The returning was stinky too. Royal was, to me anyway, a bit of a disappointment. I'll give him a pass due to his heavy duty as a reciever - ask Hester what that combo does to your return-skills. That won't change in 2009 though as Royal isn't leaving Cutlers side for anything.

So, what do we do?

Football-outsiders wrote this today in their off-season preview for the 49'ers:

The 49ers were strong on both kick and punt returns last year, but Allen Rossum is a free agent. He ranked seventh in average kickoff return in 2008.

I didn't catch much 49'er action as i spent all my non-Bronco moments screaming into a pillow or crying myself to sleep, but Rossum does seem to be someone to keep an eye on - he's a low-profile player, that might come cheap. It's better to get him, than spending a 3rd-rounder on a undersized RB or WR to return kicks.

What do you think?

P.S. Need a laugh or a chukle? Check this out!

Got to love those raider-fans! Enlarge (make it...

Claus Vestergaard — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:51:48 -0000

Got to love those raider-fans!

Enlarge (make it read-able):
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4822/unavngivetib9.jpg

The playoff hopes of the 8-8 Chargers swelled and contracted this year thanks to Ed Hochuli and the...

Claus Vestergaard — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:02:32 -0000

The playoff hopes of the 8-8 Chargers swelled and contracted this year thanks to Ed Hochuli and the Bolts' inept cousins in the AFC West, but the real moment of truth -- the Chargers' point of no return -- came in Week 15, when they needed to recover an expected onside kick to have a chance at beating the Chiefs. Their chances of succeeding were no better than one in six. Those chances were likely made slightly worse when the kick went to wide receiver Dwayne Bowe, arguably Kansas City's best player.

Instead, the ball bounced off of Bowe's chest and into the hands of Pro Bowl special teamer Kassim Osgood, who nearly left the team after demanding a trade this offseason. Instead of dealing him away, the Chargers had their best gunner situated in the one spot he needed to be in to save their season. The Chargers promptly drove down the field and scored, taking a 22-21 lead that held up after Chiefs kicker Connor Barth -- 9-for-9 on the season previously -- missed his second field goal of the game. It is not unreasonable to say that the Chargers are here and that Mike Shanahan is currently unemployed because the supremely talented and confident Bowe took his eye off the ball for a fraction of a second at precisely the wrong time

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/game-previews/2009/2009-afc-wild-card-preview

Clady robbed!!

Claus Vestergaard — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:09:06 -0000

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d80d60467&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Jason Peters?!

This post is for venting. And not with Corrs light!

I utterly hate name racognition in the pro-bowl votings! Arrrrg!!

Micheal Roos didn't even make it as the starter! Joe Thomas and Jason Peters.. You've gotta be shitting me!!

I'm angry! Very Angry!

Tough that styg50 and all you other guys' work was wasted like this..

More rant-material to come!

Edit (4:18 pm est): 0 (ze-ro) of the linemen of the best line in the league goe to Hawaii? I have yet to see a stat where Denvers O-line doesn't rank top 5!

(4:23 pm est): I'm all for taking the voting away from the fans! This can't possibly be the work of any football-educated person, therefore this must be the fans' fault!

A little comfort

Claus Vestergaard — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:59:39 -0000

The Broncos has just lost in an ugly manner, and the Chargers are pulling closer. It's understandable if you're feeling a bit blue. But hey, remember, there's always comfort to be found in raider-nation. Look at this post from the off-season (You can't call it the reloading-season when you're talking about the raiders):

http://www.silverandblackpride.com/2008/8/26/601521/oakland-raiders-news-can-t

It's called "Can the Oakland Raiders be the #1 defense in the NFL?". Ok... When you've stopped laughing about this (if it happens) you should actually read the post.

When you've done laughing, there's more. The comments section's even better! I commented on the piece back then, trying my best not to be acused of trolling, so I sugar-coated it for those poor bastards (I know I was wrong about DeAngelo, but hey, a lot of people were... Heck the entire redskin organisation still is).

Even though the run defense was terrible last season and the offense was well short of putting up enough points to force teams to pass on them, the Raiders still had 18 picks. It looks to me that if the offense scores as a higher rate and the run defense plays better then the team has upgraded the interception "potential" to the point where they "can" lead the League in picks

'Nuff said...

"IF" they did that [lead the league in INT's] and DID not make the playoffs, that would be quite abnormal.

Not many fanbases mentions playoffs before their team goes 3/4 - 13/12...

... 6 years in a row...

"I compare them [Shanahan and long term Bills coach Marv Levy] because Sunday in Denver, the...

Claus Vestergaard — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:32:42 -0000

"I compare them [Shanahan and long term Bills coach Marv Levy] because Sunday in Denver, the 56-year-old Shanahan, who I'm certain plans to coach several more years, won his 154th NFL game, tying Levy for 15th on the NFL's all-time victory list for coaches. It got me thinking. Levy coached 17 years, went 154-120 and made four Super Bowls, winning none, as a head coach, and made the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Shanahan has coached 16 years, is 154-100, and made two Super Bowls, winning both. If he gets to 200 wins -- or if he only comes close -- how can we keep him out of the Hall? If he never coaches another day, how can we keep him out of the Hall?"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/12/07/Week14/3.html

So I was wrong

Claus Vestergaard — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:43:18 -0000

Oh boy was I ever wrong. I spend the whole week arguing that we should scale down the runs - especially to Hillis since he's our best back, and everything would come crashing down with him on IR.

I'm hereby officially sorry for wasting your time. You guys were completely right, running the ball has way to much upside. Hillis and that O-line really stuck it to the 5th ranked rushing defense (according to DVOA, ofc). I think i noticed Kris Jenkins have one tackle.

And the passprotection! I noticed one time, maaaaaaybe two, where Cutler faced pressure. It was Clady getting beat inside, btw.

The inside rushing succes and the Cutler clean-ness with Kris Jenkins on the field leads me to give the gameball to Casey Wiegmann - the best, by large margin, FA-signing... And the cheapest, probably.

In other news - i really liked our pass defense. Those guys on defense absorbed tremendous numbers of injuries, and still made Favre look like Vince Young during a math-test or Plaxico Buress in a weapon-store or...I'll stop now. And it wasn't because of protection either, no it was the defensive backs staying tight with an above-average recieving corp.

With those good news, I'll forget to mention the couple of long runs by Jones (Fox didn't impress anyone) and the screen-problems.

Congrats to you guys. 3 games up i the division (hat tip to you, Mr Ryan)! SooOO close... But let's not look past Kansas - look what happened last time. I would really love for the last game i San Diego not to matter - I can't take any more nail-biters.

A small improvized stat piece (stat-guy-submission)!

Claus Vestergaard — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:07:40 -0000

Hi, guys. This is the piece i sent to Guru, as my submission to the stat-guy gig on MHR. I put some hours into it, and want it to go public i some way, so here it is.

As always you will have to bear with me and my language!

If you disagree on any of my analysis, remember I'm Scandinavian. I'm the closest to a tree-hugging socialist you'll ever get (allthough electing Obama is a step on the way, Tee-Hee), so we can all be friends and sit in a circle and talk about it in the comments section!

Also: I know this doesn't include a lot of hard, cold stats, but I lacked inspiration so I was writing off the top of my head. Hat tip to SethGrandpa for some inspiration (He broke down the commons in the losses - it sparked my idea of the win-commons... before you get to exited about some positive writing, beware)

Prelude: In this episode I would like to split the post into three parts. The first part a camparison of the way the Denver Broncos and the San Diego Chargers win and lose their games. The next part; a related basic piece of stat-analysis, in this case done by footballoutsiders, and a third part trying to connect the dots and interpret some of the data and points made in the first to parts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After week 12 of the 2008 season the Denver Broncos find themselves on top of their division - to wins ahead of the San Diego Chargers. Actually, it's more like 1.5 win, since the tie-breaker situation is unfortunate (San Diego has the advantage in in-division record). Speaking of the Chargers, its stunning how much the two teams resemble each other: Two extremely prolific offenses (despite struggling run-attacks), horribly inept defenses (albeit with flashes of respectability, SD last week against Peyton Manning were decent and Denver vs. Atlanta).

If the two teams are so alike, then why is there the significant 2 (1.5) game gap? I would love to be able to tell you guys that it is because of good coaching, great preparation and phenomenal quarterbacking when the game is on the line. I'm sorry - most of (and at least 2) of the wins are complete and utter flukes.

Denver won "close" games (decided by 1-8 (one possession) points) at Atlanta, at Cleveland, and at home against the Saints, Chargers and Buccaneers. Denver has only lost one "close" game - in Jacksonville. That's a record of 5-1. I'll grant the Broncos the wins over Cleveland and Tampa. The Tampa game was one of my favorites this year, the offense took what the Tampa-2 gave them, and held onto football, and the offense actually generated some pass rush. The Cleveland game was the classic shoot-out - very good, effective offenses against bad defenses. The three other games however were won in very fluke-ish, some might say lucky, ways:

-          San Diego: Ed Hochuli. The offense took advantage and played well with the house money. But if Hercules gets it right, it's curtains. With a fluke-ish ending, abusing a bad defense bears little credit.

-          New Orleans: Martin Gramatica, a 10-year veteran kicker, misses to field goals including a likely gamewinner from 47 yards. Missed field goals happens, but twice in a game? The average success on lead-changing kicks is, by the way, pretty consistently around 75%. The Broncos did everything in their power to lose this game (Shefflers fumble, soft defense etc.). With a fluke-ish win, abusing a bad defense bears little credit.

-          Atlanta: Roddy White will catch that ball for the game winning touchdown eight-of-ten times - minimum. Again Denver did what they could to give it away: covering a pro-bowl caliber receiver with your backup safety (if I recall correctly) in the endzone... Any comments on that, HT?

The Chargers, on the other hand, lost "close" games against the Panthers and Colts, and at Denver, Miami, New Orleans (London) and Pittsburgh. They only won one "close" contest: at home against the Chiefs. All this for a lowly record of 1-6. In the games against New Orleans, and Miami the Chargers lost to better teams. I think it's to their credit they were able to keep those contests close. They didn't get any lucky breaks against Pittsburgh and Indianapolis, but weren't unlucky either. On the "bad luck" games' side the Denver game has already been mentioned, and loosing on an as-time-expires TD is a certainly a bad break. When it was a desperation play by Jake Delhomme after avoiding a great deal of pressure and then throwing it to a no-name tight end in double coverage, makes it unbearable (for a Chargers fan of course). I will, by the way, never forget Donte Rosario for that grab...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The football-stats-wizards over at footballoutsiders.com has done research in almost every possible area of this magnificent sport. They spend a lot of time investigating correlations between on-field tendencies and checks in the win-column, wins is despite every stat, like Madden would say, "what it's all about". While investigating the matter of margin-of-win vs. good records at season's end as well as in the following year, they defined the following definitions to be able to break different wins into tiers. This is from their "stat-dictionary" on their website:

Guts: Any win by 1-8 points over a team that will finish the season with a record over .500. This term comes from an article written for FOXSports.com in 2005, and republished in Pro Football Prospectus 2006, demonstrating that big wins over bad teams are a better indicator of future success than close wins over good teams. The four terms introduced in this article:

* GUTS: A win by 1-8 points over a winning team

* STOMPS: A win by 14+ points over a losing team

* SKATES: A win by 1-8 points over a losing team

* DOMINATIONS: A win by 14+ points over a winning team

While I have the opportunity I will stress that this isn't my work, but merely a compilations. I share the urge of these guys to get these fundamental truths about the game spread out to as many fans as possible. Anyway; I highlighted the passage because that is, in fact, what I wanted to illustrate with this part. Here's another quote from their website:

Football games are often decided by just one or two plays -- a missed field goal, a bouncing fumble, the subjective spot of an official on fourth-and-1. One missed assignment by a cornerback, or one slightly askew pass that bounces off a receiver's hands and into those of a defensive back five yards away and the game could be over. In a blowout, however, one lucky bounce isn't going to change things.

Championship teams beat their good opponents convincingly and destroy the cupcakes on the schedule. Certainly there are exceptions to this rule, including the past two Super Bowl champions. Unless this becomes a trend that lasts four or five years, it is hard to say this rule no longer exists.

© [2007] Football Outsiders, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we should tie the knot on these two parts, the second part suggests that the fluke-ish (I am overusing that word aren't I?) wins, have no value in determining whether or not a given team is a "good" football team. It bears no value either in predicting the future outcome of games. So if you believe in cosmic equality, you better commence in early hibernation, because the Broncos have a lot of bad luck coming their way!

In other words: "Luck", or what Bronco-friendly mainstream media might call swagger, pedigree, x-factor or "finding a way to win", is the only thing separating the Broncos from a 3-8 record. It's not like Any of Denvers losses were flukes (Spankings at the hands of the Patriots, Dolphins, chiefs and... uhg... raiders). I don't even think the game in Jacksonville were that close... In fact the only "championship-quality-team-esque" win of the 2008 season for the Broncos came on Monday night with the 41-14 bashing of the raiders. That good impression evaporated 11 weeks later, I would say.

If we give Denver the wins in Cleveland, Atlanta, Oakland, at home against Tampa and even one of the "lucky" wins, Denver would be at 5-6. By the way, FO's advanced stats estimates Denver to 4.8 wins this season - the Broncos "outplay themselves" by 1.2 wins. The Chargers will, if we split their bad-breaks games down the middle, also be at 5-6 (FO: 6.0 estimated wins). The gap from the second paragraph is closed, and we've even, I think, been generous to the Broncos and given them the Roddy White-drop or the Gramatica-oopsie. Depressing, right? This also illustrates why someone still might favor San Diego to win the division.

And just to make you all feel very much worse, here's the dagger:

Out of 165 teams with winning records since 1995, only five were STOMPED by a losing team more than once

Let me put it this way: I hope this group of five becomes a group of six, because neither the chiefs or the raiders will have winning records come January.