Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stop assuming that this 'system' will turn us around...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oldster View Post
    I just did that but thanks for the idea anyway.
    Actually you haven't. Someone just posted the stats. I will TRY to get on tonight and give you some sources for them. Sorry I can't put my life on hold all the time to give you stats as quick as you want them. I know some old people don't have much to do, but some of us that are still young have lives outside of the internet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by neutessa View Post
      If you two are bickering about starting field position, here are the numbers ...

      Broncos' offense started, on average, at the 25.85 yard line (32nd ... that's LAST ... in the NFL).

      Broncos' defense started, on average, at the 30.20 yard line (16th in the NFL).
      Thank you, would you please provide a link, I couldn't find it.

      Comment


      • Broncos' offense started, on average, at the 25.85 yard line (32nd ... that's LAST ... in the NFL).

        Broncos' defense started, on average, at the 30.20 yard line (16th in the NFL).
        So we know where the average Bronco drive started. Where did the average Bronco drive stop? How many offensive points did that translate to. How many turnovers did the offence have? What was the average starting position of the other team after those turnovers? How much was the average starting position of the Broncos offence and defense affected by the number of turnovers that the offence committed? What were the league wide averages for those same stats? Etc.
        Belichick stressed Saturday that he errs on the side of caution with NFL rules

        Comment


        • http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

          Here you go. Now tell me I don't know what I am talking about again. I'm waiting.

          BTW, the average starting field position is the LOS/dr. Just incase someone couldn't figure it out.
          Last edited by jhns; 04-15-2009, 03:25 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MindField View Post
            McDaniels gameplan for rebuilding the team may play out over a two to three year period before showing solid results, which is what usually has to happen. It is obvious most of you don't have the patience for that, and it is also obvious that you were OK with going anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7 as the status quo under Shanahan would have provided for you.
            So you're not ok with going 9-7, but you are ok "rebuilding" for the next 3 years? You totally contradict yourself. Not only that, do your homework. McDaniels came here wooing free agents here by convincing them that the broncos were NOT rebuilding, but about winning NOW. And now you are saying his gameplan is rebuilding??? What exactly IS his game plan? Are we about winning now or rebuilding?

            Is it a coincidence that all this "rebuilding" talk came after the trade? Doesn't that mean that this team has taken a step BACKWARDS??? Sounds like a failed move to me.

            The blueprint McDaniels is using is the same one that brought the Patriots three Lombardi trophies this decade. So to me, I think McDaniels has earned the benefit of the doubt over the snivelling snot noses like you and your buddies that think you somehow know more about the inner-workings of an NFL team than McDaniels does, which to me, is a joke in itself.
            oh you mean the same blueprint of Crennell, Mangini, and Weiss?? That one? Why don't you just become a patriot fan if your so in love with the "blueprint".

            In the end, to me it's all the same. Either way, the Broncos were not going to make the Playoffs in 2009, Cutler or no Cutler.
            Even if you are right on this point, we obviously had a greater shot with Cutler at the helm. At least when we DON'T make the playoffs and your boy McDaniels is on the hot seat, all you ignorant snot sniveling blind little patriot blueprint lovers will stop posting your nonsense.

            I like what McDaniels has done, so count me squarely in his corner over you whiners.
            I love this quote...rational criticism of an incompetent front office is the equivalent of "whining?" You sound like an insecure little prick who has nothing rational to say in defense of your man-crush on McD. Did you get your hoodie yet?
            http://timtebowtime.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jhns View Post
              http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

              Here you go. Now tell me I don't know what I am talking about again. I'm waiting.

              BTW, the average starting field position is the LOS/dr. Just incase someone couldn't figure it out.
              You were right and I was wrong, sorry. Bet you're glad you erased the other stats before I questioned them aren't you? They sucked in ints and fumbles.
              Last edited by oldster; 04-15-2009, 03:36 PM.

              Comment


              • Tackle Me Elmo rocks!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                  You were right and I was wrong sorry. Bet you're glad you erased the other stats before I questioned them aren't you? The sucked in ints and fumbles.
                  Edit key is my friend. I said I was surprised until I looked again, then I wasn't surprised. Having the least punts/drive still surprises me though.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                    Edit key is my friend. I said I was surprised until I looked again, then I wasn't surprised. Having the least punts/drive still surprises me though.
                    The punts per drive shouldn't surprise you. We unfortunately gave it away before we had a chance to punt.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                      The punts per drive shouldn't surprise you. We unfortunately gave it away before we had a chance to punt.
                      Not really. We drove the furthest per drive and scored a lot, missed a lot of field goals, and yes, turned it over. It is more than just turnovers though.

                      Anyways. Look at the defensive stats per drive now. We are 30-32 in almost everything. It is very evident who was responsible for Denver losing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                        http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

                        Here you go. Now tell me I don't know what I am talking about again. I'm waiting.

                        BTW, the average starting field position is the LOS/dr. Just incase someone couldn't figure it out.
                        Interesting stats.

                        Denver:
                        Yards per drive: #1
                        Points per drive: #9
                        Interceptions per drive: #29
                        Fumbles per drive: #29
                        Turnovers per drive: #31
                        Belichick stressed Saturday that he errs on the side of caution with NFL rules

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JTC View Post
                          Interesting stats.

                          Denver:
                          Yards per drive: #1
                          Points per drive: #9
                          Interceptions per drive: #29
                          Fumbles per drive: #29
                          Turnovers per drive: #31
                          Just imagine if they didn't have to go so far and had a run game to balance the offense. I bet a lot of those mistakes are gone.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                            Edit key is my friend. I said I was surprised until I looked again, then I wasn't surprised. Having the least punts/drive still surprises me though.
                            Can you explain that stat to me? I'm not much of a stat monger but I was curious.

                            Having a fewer amount of punts would not surprise me because we could not turn the ball over to our defense without a shot at the first down or end zone in proper field position. I've never seen us turn the ball over on downs more than I have this year that I can recall.

                            Is that what it means?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by acpell671 View Post
                              Can you explain that stat to me? I'm not much of a stat monger but I was curious.

                              Having a fewer amount of punts would not surprise me because we could not turn the ball over to our defense without a shot at the first down or end zone in proper field position. I've never seen us turn the ball over on downs more than I have this year that I can recall.

                              Is that what it means?
                              It means we turned it over on downs, threw interceptions, fumbled, scored, or missed field goals a lot.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by acpell671 View Post
                                Can you explain that stat to me? I'm not much of a stat monger but I was curious.

                                Having a fewer amount of punts would not surprise me because we could not turn the ball over to our defense without a shot at the first down or end zone in proper field position. I've never seen us turn the ball over on downs more than I have this year that I can recall.

                                Is that what it means?
                                We had less punts per drive because we gave the ball back through other means prior to a punt. We were among the leagues worst in turnovers, interceptions and fumbles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X