I have been extremely pleased with our overall team play through 4 weeks and am more confident in our team as a whole than I have ever been post-Elway. However, it is always good to look for improvement. One area of improvement that I believe will come is QB accuracy. Although Orton ended up with decent stats Sunday, he missed early on several open receivers. Penalties had a lot to do with the rocky start for the offense, but some miscues in the passing game also hurt. If the offense had been on the field a bit more early on, perhaps we wouldn't have been working from behind the rest of the game. I am confident that once the glove comes off and the finger is fully healed we'll see improvement. Certainly I'm happy with Orton even with "the glove".

Continue reading this post »

I think that it is a good sign that it is hard to get down to a 53 man roster for the depth of the team overall. I would like to keep 7 WR, and perhaps some extra D-Line prospects, but there's simply not room. Overall, I agree with most of Ted Barlett's roster decisions. I'm glad that both Crowder and Moss seem to have proven themselves worthy of a roster spot. I'm not sure about Haggan, but given his tenure in the starting lineup and versatiliy (has ILB experience), I guess he'll probably make it. If there are any surprise cuts, I think maybe Andra Davis (given the rumors that we want an upgrade at this position), or O-line/D-line depth that we assume are making the team will be cut.

Otherwise, my main difference with the other rosters that have been published are that I think Chad Jackson may make the team over Lloyd. I know that McDaniels has cut Jackson before and Lloyd has played well, but they are in a toss up. The reason I would pick Jackson is that he has more upside over Lloyd, still perhaps being in the earlier stage of his career, but more importantly, he brings a more physical presence to the WR corps. Stokely, Royal, McKinley are all smaller slot receivers. Obviously Marshall brings a larger body, and to a lesser extent Gaffney. But to choose the slight Lloyd would too heavily unbalance the types of receivers on the roster. Jackson had some very physical downfield blocking on Buckhalter's long run on the first drive, not to mention the time he cleaned that Cardinals clock on the play where the flag was picked up by the officials. I know that McDaniel's preference for route runners may still win out, but if I were making the decision I would pick Jackson. Also, in a surprise move, could both Lloyd and Jackson make the roster, with McKinley being signed to the PS? I think that we should consider that possibility.

I think that at least on MHR the consensus is that Jordan should be cut. If the HC is really trying to convince people that the best players will make the team, Jordan has shown me absolutely nothing and should not have a chance to get a roster spot. I think that we can carry only 4 RBs given the pass heavy offense, 3 TE's and RBBC approach we are taking this year, in addition to Larsen's versatility.

After yesterday, we must keep Brandstater on the roster to avoid losing him. It's not that he played that well- his completion percentage wasn't that good, and the amount of passes that were off was high. It's more the poise and composure he displayed that show he has a good future ahead of him. We can't afford to lose him, given how long QB's take to develop, and also given our injury situation at the signal caller spot.

I agree with keeping Olsen, Lichtensteiger, Hochstein, and Polumbus as backups for the OL, if only because I'm not as knowledgeable about the OL. Hochstein wasn't brought in to be cut, Polumbus is the top OT backup, it seems that Shanny holdover Licks Ten Tigers is the center of the future, and olsen is the best remaining G backup. Not much to argue with there, although if there was a surprise, i wouldn't be outraged. Depending upon how badly injured Kuper is, we could see a PUP move with additional OL depth brought along for now.

On defense, I believe in keeping 6 OLB/ DE (dumervil, ayers, reid, crowder, moss, haggan) I think the fact that I can't cut any of these players is a good sign for our depth, and I think that having more players at this position will work well for game-to-game planning as well as rotational play.

At ILB, DJ Williams and Davis seem to be entrenched as starters, while Larsen and Woodyard make it for their versatility, ST play, and potential. I really think that Davis has proven to be a liability in coverage and could be a big surprise as a cut, if there are any to be made. But he is a solid run defender and veteran presence. In my opinion, given the 5-2 alignment we are trending towards, the 5 man front seems to provide enough beef/run stopping capability, and the ILB's seem to need to be much better in coverage than typical 3-4 ILBs. However, this may be one spot where sentamentality rules over what will make the team better. If Davis was cut, I guess Lee Robinson could make the team, and Josh Barrett/Mario Haggan  provides third team ILB depth. But for now I'll say that Davis probably makes it.

At DB, I think that Champ, Goodman, Phonze, Jack MF Williams, Dawkins, Hill, Bruton, McBath, and Barrett all make it. Out of these, I have noticed Hill the least, so if there was to be a surprise cut, it would be either Hill or Barrett, but at this point I predict that they all will make the roster.

At DL, the first teamers are Mc Bean, Fields, and Peterson, with UDFA Baker, NE tradee Le Kevin Smith and Marcus Thomas rounding out the rotation. I think there is no move here. My overall roster is below (listed in order of depth):

• QB: Orton, Simms, Brandstater
• RB: Buckhalter, Hillis, Moreno, Walker
• TE: Graham, Scheffler, Quinn
• WR1: Royal, McKinley
• WR2: Stokely, Jackson
• WR3: Gaffney, Marshall
• LT: Harris
• LG: Kuper: Olsen
• C: Wiegman, Lickstentiger
• RG: Hamilton: Hochstein
• RT: Clady, Polumbus

• LOLB: Ayers, Haggan, Moss 
• DE: Mc Bean, Thomas
• NT: Fields, Baker
• DE: Peterson, Smith
• ROLB: Dumervil, Reid, Crowder
• LILB: DJ Williams, Woodyard
• RILB: Andra Davis, Larsen
• CB: Goodman, Williams
• FS: Dawkins, Bruton, Barrett
• SS: Hill, McBath
• CB; Bailey, Smith

• ST: Kern, Prater, Paxton

In closing, I'm very pleased that it's hard for me to find people I don't want on the team. Haggan and Davis are probably the two players I think our overall talent level would be better without, but their veteran leadership/versatility probably helps them make the roster unless Lee Robinson really has made a push in practice. Either way, I think we have a lot to look forward to this season and long term. In one season, the overall quality and depth of our roster has gone up substantially: no more Koutovides/Webster. I may not think a 13-3 baby! is in order, but I'll give us a realistic shot at 10-6 for McD's inaugural season.

As reported by the Denver Post, the Broncos have signed Darius Walker. There had been previous reports that there had been a workout of Walker recently. Link: (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12318940).

What to make of yet another RB signing? Did McDaniels forget that football is only played with one ball at a time? Is his master plan to accumulate all of the RBs in the NFL in a kind of evil monopoly?

I'm sure the MSM will jump all over this, saying that the Broncos are once again ignoring the front seven when they already have more than enough RBs. But in reality, for the past minicamps, there have only been 3 RBs healthy enough to take reps in practice. So even though our quality and depth at the RB spot is good, we at least need bodies to get through camp. And if Arrington, et al., can't rehab successfully before the season, Walker provides a pretty decent option. I'm willing to bet he'd at least be better than Cory Boyd, P.J. Pope, or our favorite cell phone salesman, Tatum Bell. So count this signing as more insurance against the injuries at the RB spot. After all, Moreno is really the only RB on our roster with out a lot of wear and tear or recent significant injury. So before everyone starts the name calling, take a deep breath. I for one am glad we'll actually have some healthy RBs for the season.

Introduction: Statistics- Helping us see, or muddying the waters?

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on MHR about whether statistics are meaningful, and if so, which ones are meaningful. It is fairly clear to an observer who looks at the big picture objectively that many statistics are manipulated to increase or decrease the value of players, often unfairly. For example, the number of TDs or INTs Jay Cutler or Brett Favre threw could be manipulated in one case to show how important a franchise QB was who can single handedly win a game (for example the OT MNF game last year DEN vs. GB), or on the other hand how both QBs made irresponsible decisions that probably cost their team a lot of wins (red zone INT, forcing throws into coverage when there are other receivers open). It is very difficult to make objective decisions about the value or performance of sports players because of the extreme emotion that accompanies any such activity. However, I think it is important to at least have some grasp on how management of professional sports teams does, and should view statistics, and how this should be different from how the average fan and the mainstream media (MSM) view statistics with regard to players and their value to the team.

The Most Valuable Player Award: NBA

No matter what the sport, the MVP debate is always intense. Even this year, when LeBron James led his team (solid, but Mo Williams is no All-Star) to the best record in the NBA and put up staggering, historic numbers, there were still calls for Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade as MVP. I don't think the argument for Kobe as MVP this year are that valid, but people had a point with Dwayne Wade. He literally carried the Heat on his back to probably a greater extent than LeBron. But was he the MVP? I don't think so. Because people have different arguments for what MVP really means, this award is particularly hard to argue objectively. Many say that it is the player that a team could least afford to lose. I think that both the Heat and Cavaliers would be pretty bad without their superstars, but the Cavs would probably be better overall. But does that mean LeBron wins just because his team is better? It turns out that most years the reason someone wins the award is pretty distorted. I have no problem with LBJ winning the MVP this year, but look at last year. I am no Lakers hater (I actually am a fan), but to be completely honest, I think Kobe Bryant was less valuable to the Lakers last year when they went to the Finals than he was in the previous few years, when it look superhuman performances night after night (example 81 points, etc.) to even get to the playoffs. He got the award last year becuase it was "his turn," that is, he was good for so long, and he finally was on a good team, so everyone thought he should get it. I'm not saying he shouldn't have gotten it, but Chris Paul had a legitimate shot in my eyes. Overall, I guess the lesson to be learned is that often the MVP goes to the best player on the best team, not the truly most valuable player.

The MVP: NFL

What about in the NFL? Did anyone doubt that Tom Brady should be considered for MVP of the decade prior to last year's injury? After all, he played at the game's premier position, winning 3 Super Bowls, throwing 50 TDs in a season, leading his team to an undefeated regular season (before a heartbreaking loss (for him that is.... I was rooting for the Giants)). Those are HOF kind of accomplishments. Not only did he amass the ultimate statistic: wins and championships, but he also put up the kind of gaudy passing numbers (TDs, yards, etc) that make GMs, scouts, coaches, fans, and media alike drool. However, the past year has put Mr. Brady's career in an interesting light. The success of the Patriots after Brady's injury, and Josh McDaniels willingness to trade an "elite" QB bring into question traditional stereotypes about the QB position. If Tom Brady was one of the few players that could be considered an "MVP," why were the Patriots able to win without him? Certainly Brady was an excellent QB, but it seems that the system and team dynamic of the Patriots was greater than the hole. The belief of the team as well as their unselfishness was able to compete week in, week out. So does this means that through some magical "team spirit" dynamic a professional sports team can win without any talented players? Definitely not. But it does bring into question how important blockbuster trades and marquee FA signings actually are. Is Albert Haynesworth a great football player? Yes he is. Would I pay him 100 million dollars? Heck no. I think that in the light of many teams' failure to win despite bringing in big name players, that management should reassess the ways in which they value players. I think that successful franchises have a balanced approach to spending money and building through smaller pieces (draft, undrafted FA) as evidenced by the Eagles, Patriots and Steelers. I hope that the Broncos join those franchises as perennial contenders, and am encouraged by what I have seen so far.

Sabermetrics: the Red Sox as an MLB example

John Henry, the owner of the Red Sox, came from a background as a commodities trader. He used a mechanical system which eliminated human emotions from any decision being made, using only the objective variable of price. When he became owner of the Red Sox he hired Bill James, one of the leading proponents of "sabermetrics," which basically looked to quantitate players' effect on the team/production objectively through the use of statistics. While I think that baseball is probably more easily quantitated given the huge amount and variety of statistics in baseball, the success of the Red Sox since taking this approach (breaking the Curse of the Bambino, winning 2 World Series) shows that an objective approach can be extremely successful. If the Red Sox organization can pay a guy who only job is to  crunch numbers, I think the Broncos should at least pay attention to them. It is of note that the Red Sox CEO was recently hired as the Dolphins CEO, and that perhaps this approach may be looked at by other professional teams as well. This is not to say that the Red Sox won without marquee players, just as other franchises that were successful year in and year out had great players (Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Eagles, Spurs, etc). However, perhaps being able to accurately value players and not "bust" on free agent signings or draft picks, gives a franchise the best chance for success, and these teams have best accomplished that. I bring up the Red Sox as a particularly interesting example, because they have directly used statistics, and not just "value" as a way to assess players' performance and make managerial decisions. I think that having an objective view of players performance is much better than a "gut" feel for a player, and leads to more long term success.

How does "sabermetrics" apply to the NFL?

It is fairly clear that the kind of statistical analysis that can be done in the MLB (slugging percentage, on base percentage, RBI, HR, etc) is fairly difficult in the NFL, where some positions may accumulate very few statistics (Offensive Line, NT, etc.). However, the philosophy can be adapted to fit NFL player evaluation. In baseball, fans are in love with the home run, and players who can hit the deep ball are probably overvalued to some extent, compared to players with plate discipline who while they don't pile up the flashy individual numbers are better overall for their team because they walk more, see more pitches, get on base, and don't strike out. Hopefully, in the football analogy the flashy player would be Jay Cutler, while the more sound player could be Kyle Orton (we will have to see). For the team, I think the player with a mentally more sound approach is better although the physically more talented player is often favored by fans. While it may be hard to grade NT's using a statistical approach, QBs can be, because of the amount of statistics they generate compared to other positions in the NFL. Gunslinger types like Brett Favre or Cutler who rack up both INTs and TDs would be akin to sluggers who hit HRs and strike out with similar frequency despite their elite ability. Game managers such as Trent Dilfer would be like technically sound hitters who help their team win despite lesser talent because of mental discipline and sound, fundamental play. The best players combine great ability with mental discipline, hitting HRs while getting on base more often and striking out less. The NFL equivalent would be Tom Brady/Peyton Manning, whose mental ability and work ethic along with talent allowed them to reach the top of the NFL QB pile. Like in baseball, or the NBA, where points per game is the kingpin of stats, gunslingers such as Favre, Cutler, or Jeff George are overvalued. In my opinion, it is better to have the game manager type than a gunslinger. After all, Trent Dilfer won the Super Bowl as many times as Brett Favre. Same goes for Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant.

Plummer vs. Cutler

Someone recently posted a stat that Jake Plummers winning percentage was 0.727 while he was the Broncos starting QB. Yet he was shelved in favor of Jay Cutler. Most fans would ask for management's head to be examined if a QB with a winning percentage that high was benched. But the allure of Cutler's arm swayed not only Shanahan, but many fans, myself to some extent included, although I always liked Plummer for his no-nonsense mentality. I bring this up as a recent example of how arm strength can sway even the professionals that run sportsteams to make decisions that may not be best for the team. Imagine if after losing the AFC Championship game after going 13-3 the Broncos had not drafted Cutler, and instead had spent that No. 1 pick on an impact defender. I think we would have remained highly competitive the next year. In my opinion, we had a bad game against the Steelers (not just Plummer, Bailey dropped a Pick 6 at the start of the game, and there were many plays that just didn't go our way) that prevented us from being the AFC team to beat the Seahawks that year. Instead, we fell for the siren song that was Jay Cutler. To be fair, he turned out to be a much better QB than the much over hyped Vince Young/Matt Leinart, but Jay was also an example of picking ability over value to the team. I think in retrospect an impact defender or RB would have had better value to the team than a QB.

Stats and the draft

So how should teams view player acquisition? I believe that the stats that matter in the NFL are the player's college production. While there are examples such as Antonio Gates or Jason Peters where a team took on a player as a project because of their athletic ability with great success, these are dwarfed by the number of failures (anyone remember  Wesley Duke's sweet TD catch agains Buffalo? I'm pretty sure it was his only one, sadly.). In investing terms, these flyers are like buying penny stocks. While you may lose money because of improper valuation of blue chip companies, rarely will you lose everything. Even if a first round draft pick is not a Probowler, if they contribute to the team, the pick was not wasted. Thus the picks of Moreno, Ayers, and Smith who can contribute immediately over other players that would have rode the bench or had great bust potential. The lesson to be learned from other successful franchises is to draft with the player's value to the team in mind, not being swayed by a players combine numbers (the ultimate in numbers as obfuscation) or media hype. Whether that value is measured in immediate production as derived from a players film, college production, or promise does not matter, as long as this central philosophy is followed. While it seems obvious, I would argue that most teams are incredibly swayed by public opinion and the allure of flashy players (aka Reggie Bush). Like the economics study that showed that coaches do not go for it on fourth down nearly enough (with the exception of the Patriots), team's management often do what is expected, rather than what is right for the team. Although the results of this season may not be up the la-la landers expectations, the fact that the Broncos are certainly not being swayed by public opinion is good news, at least to me.

Contrarianism in the NFL?

Contrarian investing takes advantage of the stupidity of the mob to make money through correct valuation of investments when almost everyone else is doing the opposite. I think the new regime of Josh McDaniels is off to a great start if for no other reason than everyone thinks he is a failure. None of us MHR readers give much stock to the MSM's opinion anyway, because we don't respect them as knowledgable analysts and instead view them as figureheads of sport opinion/garbage. I propose that the MSM's overall dislike of the Broncos decision to trade Jay Cutler, draft Knowshon Moreno, and trade a 1st round pick for Alphonso Smith is a great predictor of success for the Broncos. Even if any of these decisions turn out to be less than ideal, I am confident that our franchise is on the way up if only because we aren't doing what most other franchises are. All of the modern day successful franchises have been consistently good by objective valuation of players and committment to the team as a whole, as evidence by the Patriots trade of Deion Branch, the Red Sox's trade of Manny Ramirez, and the Eagles refusing to match the Broncos offer to Dawkins. While these franchises differ in their valuation of players based upon that franchise's particular scheme/philosophy (Philly has other young safeties, Broncos need veteran leadership and had horrible safeties last year), they all have in common their ability to act independently of public opinion (see outrage over both Dawkins and Cutler this offseason). I propose that this is the most important traits for the front office of a pro sports franchise. Make mistakes, but make them on your own, don't let Porkshop Williamson or John Clayton make them for you. After all, there is a reason GM's have their job (exception Matt Millen) and reporters have their job (although how did the Gumbels ever get their jobs?). Overall, I am happy to pass the kool-aid around, not neccessarily for a 13-3 season this year, but for a long-term turnabout in the fortunes of the Broncos due to stable, value-driven, team-first management.

After reading the Yahoo! closeup on Cal DE Rulon Davis, I hoped that the Broncos might draft him because his character/toughness seemed to fit the new team mentality that Josh McDaniels was trying to instill. To sign him as a UFA was a great move by the Broncos, because according to the Denver Post (however unreliable) SF, JAC, and NYG all were also attempting to sign Davis. His experience as an actual (not projected) 3-4 DE playing 5 technique at Cal should give him a decent shot at making the team at least as a backup.

In addition, several members here have already remarked at his first name. "Rulon", after all, is not that common of a name. It seems there was no coincidence. According to Klis, Davis' father, who was a Chargers fan, although he hated Rulon Jones as a fan, respected his game so much that he named his son after him. So now we all have even more reason to root for Davis to make the team. Not only was he a Marine (like Mike Anderson), which teaches an individual to be perhaps the ultimate team player, he is incredibly tough, having lived through a tour of duty in Iraq and having his calves run over by a semi. Now, in addition to all that, he has pseudo-bloodlines back to the Bronco days of yore, the olden Orange Crush, by virtue of being named for Rulon Jones. I'm hoping he not only makes the team, but develops into a starter, as an worthy heir to the throne as Denver returns to its 3-4 roots and hopefully restores the attitude of the Orange Crush.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12286294

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12286295

I know we've placed a ban on derogatory nicknames for our McHeadCoach, but I think those at MHR who still don't support our HC should redirect their abuse towards a certain "pundit"/"expert"/"nfl insider" who thinks the pick the Broncos traded to Seattle will be number 6 next year. Really? We're going to be worse than 25 other teams? I don't think so, and I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in next year when Seattle is picking in the late teens to twenties.

So, to those of you flinging the Mc__________ insults at our own HC, I redirect toward you to ESPN's own Todd McShay. Please refer to him by whatever name/obscenity you feel is most accurate. I mean, this guy has been pulling his "expert opinion" out of you-know-where for long enough. So, fire away at the new McDumba@@.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=4110478&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnfl%2fdraft09%2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dmcshay_todd%26id%3d4110478

I had seen earlier in the day the signing of LB Nick Greison, for what I assumed to be more training camp fodder, or if he made the roster, mainly ST help and depth. But I hadn't noticed that Pinnock had been waived in order to make room for Greison. This comes as somewhat as a surprise, but at the same time helps solve a lot of the "OMG we have way too many RBs!!!!!!!" panic among some here at MHR and definitely in the MSM in their grade of the Broncos draft.

It seemed like the general consensus prior to this move was that Pinnock would be the ideal iso fullback for McDaniels new offense, and that he had likely made the cut by remaining on the roster this long. With Buckhalter, Arrington, Jordan and Hillis already forming a pretty decent group of RBs, the addition of Moreno did give us a veritable glut of tailbacks. At this point, assuming Pinnock was making the team as the only true blocking fullback would pretty much guarantee a FA signee would be cut if either young or torain were to make the team. In my opinion, Young is gone, and Torain has to have a great camp in order to make the roster. Either of them might end up on the practice squad. But now, with Pinnock cut, the possibilities are more interesting.

The CFA signing of Marques Branson out of Central Arkansas is intriguing to me because he seems like a virtual Hillis clone- the state, the size, the H-back abilities. I think that our assumption that the new offense would require a blocking fullback is definitely false. As we know, McDaniels is not idiot, and I'm pretty sure he would like a fullback (H-back, whatever) who can catch, carry the ball, etc. over one whose only role is blocking. I know I prefer Hillis over the typical FB. In addition, the priority drafting of Richard Quinn signals that we are in store for more 2 or 3 TE formations. It seems that our roster moves show a greater use of the TE for blocking and a shift towards using Hillis to maximize his abilities. Branson should at least make the practice squad if he's anywhere near as talented as Hillis, and maybe the roster as a backup. We could see a whole new position evolve using Hillis and Branson in McDaniel offense. I think signing a player so similar to Hillis is evidence he will play a large role in the new offense, and therefore having a backup with similar skills is neccessary. If McDaniels was using Hillis as a fullback or RB without regard to his unique skillset, we would not see the roster moves outlined above.

As the offseason unfolds, I'm getting really drunk on the orange kool-aid, and can't wait to see our new-look team. I don't think we can have too many quality RBs given what happened last year, and given that I think we're going to see a lot of running the ball this year, which I am pumped about. Let me know what you think about the addition of Quinn and Branson, and the release of Pinnock. I think these moves speak volumes about the bright future of the car-pullin' Rumblin' Redneck Peyton Hillis!

 http://blog.denverbroncos.com/denverbroncos/broncos-sign-greisen/

Here is my OFFICIAL Broncos mock. Based on the McDaniels press conference yesterday, I hope to see some additional maneuvering, perhaps a trade of Scheffler and additional picks to get back into the second round with PHI. However, this mock is assuming no trades. I think that MHR will be surprised by the early pick of an offensive player, as McDanels has repeatedly emphasized that we will try to get better on the offensive side of the ball. I doubt that this will mean a QB, unless Sanchez falls to 12, which looks unlikely. I also doubt that this be an offensive lineman, b/c we are set at the tackle position, and  interior lineman is not an immediate need (although we need a replacement for Wiegmann and a good backup for Hamilton), plus there is not good value in the first round for these positions. I do not see us taking a WR in the first round barring a Crabtree fall to 12, in which case we should send in our card immediately. SO what does that leave? TE and RB. I know there are many who would rejoice at a selection of Knowshon. However, given McDaniel's tendency to favor a RB by committee, and given the amount of FA RBs we already have, a first round RB would seem a bit excessive to me. TE? This is perhaps one of our greatest areas of strength, and most have advocated taking a flier on Bear Pascoe in a later round. However, I think that if we are truly taking a BPA approach, Pettigrew has to be a legitimate option. Instead of reaching for a NT in a weak class, or taking an DE to OLB player that McDaniels has emphasized will be a project (even Tyson Jackson, who he said didn't play true 5-technique DE at LSU), much like many other OLBs on our roster, I think that taking a 5 star player who does not have bust risk is a better move. With that in mind, I think Pettigrew, and Cushing would be solid picks given Cushing's versatility and experience playing various positions.

Continue reading this post »