This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You obviously haven't listen much to what Tiki Barber tries to pass for analysis.
you are right . . . he does attack the giants, still , for the same reason, he should NOT be analyzing his former team . . .
Denver is a less legitimate 2-0 team than Detroit, San Fran, or Houston? Denver's one of the more talented teams in the league, was viewed as a potential SB contender before the season, and has a strong recent history of success (including a 13-3 season and an AFCCG appearance just a year ago). Also, check out their team stats on pro football reference. They're #1 in yards gained, #1 in yards allowed, 9th in yards per passing play and 1st in yards allowed per passing play (the two biggest statistical indicators of team success), and so on, and so on, and so on. They're on pace to SHATTER the NFL records for most offensive plays in a season, most offensive yards in a season, and have allowed less than ONE NET PASSING YARD PER MINUTE (that's an average of less than 60 net passing yards per game).Seriously, it's one thing to question why those games were close in the first place, but calling Denver the "LEAST legitimate 2-0 team out there" is sensationalism, and very poor sensationalism at that.
According to PFR, they're also 3-0.
Try watching the Denver/Oakland game with Rich Gannon doing the CBS analysis. When Porter got their only offensive touchdown Gannon actually yelled "We got'em now!" I think he momentarily forgot where he was and what he was doing...again.
did you bother to adjust your stats for quality of competition??and really, using the term "on pace" is not realistic when you've played TWO games . . .
Gannon should NEVER do an Oakland game . . . it's not like there's only eight teams in the league . . .
This just goes to show how meaningless stats can be, because with all of this, they had to scramble to beat Buffalo, and were lucky to beat Oakland. They may be 2-0, they may have more talent than other 2-0 teams, but they have been the least impressive of them.
good post . . .
Like I said in the "glass tiger" thread: if you are going to toss out the "lucky" card, you have to allow for the fact that Buffalo and Oakland were lucky the games were that close to begin with. It took a punt return for a TD and two Elam missed FG's for Buffalo to be competitive, and an int returned for a TD and an additional Elam missed FG for Oakland to be competitive.As SSOG was alluding to, if you look at any metric of the game beyond score, Denver dominated their competition. Sometimes it is appropriate to go beyond the score and dig a little deeper.
They did not dominate either of those teams. Their run defense has been poor in both games. You can't be considered dominant with poor run defense. Oakland had 200 rushing yards. When I watched the games, I certainly did not see a dominant performance by Denver. The stats have nothing to do with what I saw. There was luck both ways. The fact is both games were close. Oakland moved the ball pretty well throughout the game, and who knows what would have happened without the 3 interceptions.
this is moving the ball pretty well?
The problem is he's on their worst team, and the Raiders game is typically CBS' worst game.
I don't know that they're the least legitimate 2-0 team but all the stats in the world don't change that they beat two of the worst teams in the league by a hair. Seriously, Buffalo by one point on a last second field goal and Oakland on a last second timeout to nullify a kick? I think Denver will be a lot better this season but they're definitely the team least deserving of a 2-0 record so far.
If he's not able to analyze his former team he shouldn't be in the business at all. He's paid to talk about all teams, not just the other 31. Interesting that there's criticism of TD because of the homerism and of Tiki because he's been down on the G-men. It's entertainment. It doesn't matter. Nobody is ever going to confuse any of the ex jocks for journalists.
WOW - that's the funniest and WEAKEST argument I've ever read here. And there's been a lot. Let's remove Oakland from the statement above and try something Broncos fans could have said (if not so moronic) the last few years...
And these things do what exactly to increase Denver's legitimacy?If a win is a win is a win, I'd say that an INT is an INT is an INT. A penalty is a penalty is a penalty. What good is 500 yards of offense if you manage to squander your red zone opportunities on every drive?
What do you think would be easier to fix? Trying to change an offense that only manages 200 yds/game to an offense that can garner 400+ yds/game (thus increasing scoring chances) or improving your redzone conversion rate so that the TD/FG ratio is higher? If you gave me a choice between:1) Team A that had 200 yds of offense/game and converted both RZ chances into TDs for a total of 2 TDs after 2 gamesor 2) Team B that had 400 yds of offense/game and had 4 RZ chances/game but only managed 1 TD and 2 FGs per gameI'll take Team B any day of the week. That stuff can be fixed, especially with their potent running game.
I doesn't do anything to increase their legitimacy. But that is exactly my point, Denver fans aren't coming on here going "Look at us. We are Number One!!" When I looked at our schedule when it first came out, I figured we would be 2-0 right now. I figured 3-0 after Sunday. I am pencilling in a loss to Indy and then hoping to split the season series with SD. 4-1 was my best case scenario going into the bye.Did I miss something where you only get a 1/2 a win for beating inferior teams by not a lot of points?
I would also take team B in a heart beat. Lots of yards = more redzone chances, and does anyone really see the Broncos not getting better in the red zone compared to their first two games as the season goes on? Cutler has started 7(i think) games in his career, he is getting better not worse, the whole def is learning a new system (bates), the run def should get better as the season goes on, there are a lot of young and new faces on the D-line. I see the Broncos as a team that has a 2-0 jump start on the season (lucky or not) and now only has to go 8-6 to make playoffs. They are ready are are 2-0 v AFC and 1-0 in Divison, only the niners with two divison wins are in better shape in the standings right now. I see the Broncos in the playoffs, once there anything can happen.
The 49ers have faced equally poor competition and put up a shadow of the stats Denver has. Ditto that for Detroit, a team that was 3-13 last season. Like I said, Denver's not the only team that has beaten shoddy competition, but Denver *IS* the only team that has put up such mind-blowing stats against inferior competition, and Denver is also the only team that has narrowly beaten inferior competition that was considered a SB contender before the season even opened.Besides, you can cite the quality of the competition all you want, but that only gets you so far. Last year, Oakland had one of the worst offenses in the history of professional football, but they still averaged 180 passing yards per game. Denver held them to 73 passing yards despite playing overtime and despite the fact that Oakland's offense has improved. I mean, yes, generally you put up better stats against inferior competition, but not THIS MUCH BETTER. Last year, Buffalo had 190 yards passing per game, and Denver again shut them down completely. And to say that Denver's offensive yardage numbers are inflated is silly, since Oakland is considered by many to be one of the top 5 or top 10 defenses in the entire NFL.
Predictive value. Tell me, which would you rather have- an offense than rang up 400 yards in back-to-back weeks but only scored 14 points in each, or an offense that rang up 150 yards in back-to-back weeks, but managed to put up 21 points? I'd go for the first offense because yards are a heckuvalot more consistent than TDs. If Denver keeps producing yardage like it has been, the scoring will come.Likewise, I'd rather have a defense that gave up 150 yards per game through two weeks, but gave up an average of 30 ppg than a defense that gave up 800 yards per game but was pitching a shutout. In both instances, I feel like the scoring is going to start falling more in line with the yardage, not vice versa.
Not always. Currently, though, Denver is outgaining their opposition by more than 2:1. Their yards per game would stand as an NFL record, as would their yardage differential. They have run 72 offensive plays per game, which would be the most at least since 1996 (don't have any data going back further than that), and average 6.5 plays per drive, which is another record. You can say that it's too early to seriously begin pro-rating numbers, and you're absolutely right, but their numbers THROUGH TWO GAMES are indeed mind-blowing. If Denver were to continue on exactly as they have been, they would SHATTER a ton of long-standing NFL records. Yes, that's mind-blowing, blowout or no blowout. If Peyton Manning passes for 59 TDs in a single game, that's pretty mindblowing, even if Indy goes 0-16. If Denver scores 5,000 points this season and finishes 2-14, then they will have still produced mind-blowing stats.
I'm fixated on passing defense because it's so mind-blowingly unbelievable that it really needs to be highlighted. I mean, they're allowing LESS THAN ONE NET YARD PER MINUTE. That's unfathomable. Also, statistical analysis reveals that the biggest indicators of team success are passing offense and passing defense (specifically, YPA and YPA Allowed). A poor run defense is a problem, but remember that last year's Indianapolis Colts had the worst run defense OF THE PAST THIRTY YEARS. How'd that wind up working out for them? Even if you want to focus on defense as a whole, that's fine- Denver's defense is second in the league in net yards allowed, (would have been first if not for overtime), and first in the league in yards allowed per play. And yes, this is including the run defense.Remember, too, that a large reason why Denver gave up 6 yards a pop to LaMont Jordan is because they were playing with a two-TD lead for much of the game. LaMont Jordan was only 11/47/0 in the first half.
Have you seen Daniel Graham play? Oh, wait, that's right- TEs don't get points for blocking, so it must be a worthless skill. There's a reason why Denver's running game has blown up this season from where it was last year, despite the fact that the offensive line is one injury-riddled mess. There's also a reason why Mike Shanahan has singled Daniel Graham out for praise after both games so far this season. Antonio Gates might be the Randy Moss of TEs, but Daniel Graham is the Walter Jones. I'm not saying Graham is better than Gates- both are the best at what they do in the entire league- I'm just saying that there's a reason why he got paid so much, and it's the same reason why LTs are considered one of the most important positions in the entire NFL (even more important than WRs). Throw Tony Scheffler into the equation, as well, and I don't think it's quite the slam dunk that everyone else seems to think it is.
Hey, look, Football Outsiders lists Denver as the 6th best team in the league, with the 6th best offense and the 2nd best defense. They also call Denver's pass defense the best unit in the entire NFL by a substantial margin. I suppose their statistical formula must be an embarassing Broncos homer, too. Math's credibility is suspect!If you want to say that Denver is lucky to be 2-0, I've got no qualms with that statement. If you want to say that Denver is somehow a less legitimate team than the San Francisco 49ers, Washington Redskins, or Detroit Lions based on NOTHING MORE THAN MARGIN OF VICTORY, then that's where I start having a problem.
Did you feel the same way about Indy last year? They had a few close games against very inferior opponenets and their run defense was very bad. They won two games against Tenn and Buff by 1 point. Did you consider them dominant last year? Did those 1 pt wins take away from the talent and caliber of the team? I'm just curious what your opinions are on that? Does the fact that those games for Indy last year came in weeks 5 and 10 make it different than if it happened in weeks 1 and 2?
The Broncos rush defense, which is 27th in the league right now, is definitely a concern, but despite that, the defense has allowed only 17 points in two games. Odds are, the rush defense numbers will get better, and the pass defense numbers will go up (as no one team will keep averaging allowing only 62 passing yards a game).
Run defense is overrated. As I said, Passing is where the real money is made in the NFL. With that said, run defense is simply one unit. Part of the reason why the run defense has been so poor so far is because they've had both safeties playing pass pretty much all season so far (which is also one of the reasons why passing defense is so good). Look at aggregate defense, though- passing and rushing COMBINED- and no team in the league is giving up fewer yards per game or per play. In my mind, a team could pass against my defense for 400 yards, and if they wound up rushing for -200, I'd still call that a dominant performance. By the same token, they can rush for 200, but if they pass for 53 net and 3 INTs, that's pretty solid. Not a dominant defensive day, especially considering the competition, but when you consider it with the offense (again, especially considering the competition- Oakland has a VERY good defense), pretty darn good... even, dare I say it, dominant. If you don't want to call week 2 dominant, that's fine, but you certainly have to be impressed with the season-to-date. It's not often that a team outgains its first two opponents by a 2:1 margin, and any deficiencies in run defense are more than offset by the fact that Denver so far has the greatest passing defense in the history of modern football. I expect that passing defense to come back to earth, but I expect the running defense to stiffen up at the same time, since it'll likely be a result of the safeties playing more in the box.Again, the big point of this argument is that there are lots of explanations why someone might consider Denver a top-10 team besides just "he's an embarrassing homer".
The Colts definitely weren't dominant in those specific games you mentioned. It doesn't mean they were not a dominant team, it means they did not dominate those games. I never said anything about the talent that Denver has. I was only speaking of the 2 games they have played, and they were not dominant in either of them.
Run defense is overrated? You have got to be kidding me. Stopping the run is critical to winning. Look at the difference in the post season of the Colts of last year (with Bob Sanders), and the old Colts who could never stop the run and never won anything. The Denver run defense has been bad because the middle of the line has looked soft and the tackling has been poor. They will never win anything if the run defense doesn't improve, especially against better offenses. I have never said a word about who is or isn't a homer. I really don't care about that stuff at all. I also have not said that Denver is or isn't a top 10 team. FYI, I think they are clearly a top ten team. But it doesn't mean I think they have dominated either of the first 2 games, because they have not in my opinion.
I completely agree. I think they are indeed a top 10 team, especially talent-wise, but they haven't necessarily shown it yet except in the stat column. There is no question that their stats are indeed impressive and are not reflected in the final score, but watching the game as you said they just didn't look as dominant. I think it was just a lot of little things they did wrong that kept those games closer than they really should have been. From the playcalling in the redzone to missed FG's to timely turnovers, Denver never looked completely in control as those stats showed. However, as was stated above, they are definitely one of the more legit 2-0 teams when compared to SF, Detroit, Houston, and GB. If they can fix a few of these little things, and yes I think they are definitely "little" and fixable, they could be a truly dominant team this year much like SD was last year on both sides of the ball.
I think you're a bit off topic here. The thread is about Terrell Davis declaring Denver the most legitimate 2-0 team out of 2006's non-playoff teams (Steelers, Broncos, Redskins, 49ers, Packers, Lions, Texans) after two weeks. Several of that lot have beaten equal or better opponents, and some much more decisively than the Broncos have, the Steelers in particular.
Of that group, I think only the Steelers are in the same ballpark as Denver. Cases could be made for both teams, but I think those 2 are pretty equal talent-wise and head and shoulders above the rest of those 2-0 teams listed.
Oh golly, why didn't you say so?
Yes, run defense is INCREDIBLY overrated. First off, as I said, simple statistical regression shows that passing defense correlates significantly more strongly to winning than run defense. Second off, the whole idea that teams who run the ball tend to win has the cause-effect relationship BACKWARDS. Teams don't run to win, they win to run- in other words, the team that is winning runs more, which results in a higher rushing yardage. Check out the flagship article from the Football Outsiders. "You pass to score, you run to win".In that respect, the only time having a stellar run defense really helps you out more than a stellar pass defense is if you're attempting a comeback late in the game, when the other team is trying to ice the clock and a solid run defense will prevent them. In any other situation, I'd prefer a good passing defense. Last season's Colts are another great example- their Rushing YPG allowed really plummeted in the playoffs, but so did their rushing attempts faced. Teams ran an average of 20 times per game against the Colts, averaging better than 4 yards per (18 times per game @ 4.5 yards per carry even if you discount QB scrambles). I'd hardly call a rush defense allowing 4.5 yards per carry to opposing RBs to be an example of the importance of a good rush defense, especially since Denver's "horrible" rush defense is giving up 4.75 ypc to RBs.
