Hoss Style said:
Adam Harstad said:
Say what you will about the Patriots missing skill position players, but our O just hung 30 on them with a QB in his second start and a stud WR who couldn't catch. There's no way you can't be encouraged by that.
I'd say the 30 points is very misleading. Really, it was 24 points on 14 drives in regulation on a night where the ball was fumbled three times and Denver recovered all three. It wasn't a *bad* offensive game, especially considering the quality of the defense, but it wasn't a great one, either. Pretty middle-of-the-road, all things considered. Despite the final score, I think the defense outperformed the offense again.
Which is fine. It's not 2013. "Middle-of-the-road" is acceptable on offense. The defense is going to outperform the offense a lot this year.
I'm kind of with mole on this one, Adam. Our fumbles were obviously bad, but they were recovered by us which can be chalked up to awareness of our players (and a bit of luck, too), but on average the Pats fumble twice as much per game as we do, so that's kind of an anomaly in itself. I wasn't really comfortable with praising our 30 when 6 of it came in OT, but after watching it again, it wasn't like we labored through tons of extra time to get it. We scored immediately after holding the Pats the previous drive.
I know you want to temper expectations, and believe me - I'm tempered. You're right that our D is carrying us for the most part. I just think that our 30 was a solid 30. Nothing to brag too much about, but we didn't luck into it either.
I don't know - I kind of agree with both of you. I'm tired and rambling. I'm just happy we are playing better.
The tempering isn't that Denver was lucky, (although going 3-for-3 on fumble recoveries is definitely a lucky break; the rate at which teams fumble is skill, but the rate at which they recover fumbles is chance, so recovering all three means we overperformed slightly). The key thing to realize is that Denver had a *LOT* of offensive drives. Fifteen total, counting the one in overtime. 24 points on 14 drives in regulation works out to 1.71 points per drive, which would rank Denver 25th in the NFL. (For the season, Denver averages 1.68 points per drive, which ranks 26th.) If you count the overtime drive-- and you should! There's no reason to suspect the numbers would be improved by privileging or disprivileging overtime statistics in rate stats-- Denver's 31 points in 15 drives, (because they could have hit the XP if necessary), would result in a 2.07 average. Over a full season, averaging 2.07 points per drive would rank Denver 9th.
So Denver's offensive performance would rank somewhere between 9th and 25th in the league over the full season. In a game where they were at home and had favorable officiating, against a defense missing its best player. With the benefit of a 48-yard breakaway touchdown run on 3rd-and-long, (which counts, but isn't as sustainable of an indicator going forward as an extended touchdown drive). Denver had more 3-and-outs, (6, counting the drive where Osweiler was intercepted on the third play), than offensive scores, (5).
It wasn't a bad game. It was a solid game. A decent game. Perhaps even a borderline good offensive game. Certainly not a great one. Which is fine; with Denver's defense, "borderline good" is more than enough.
That defense, by the way, held the mighty Patriots offense to 24 points in 15 drives, a 1.60 point per drive average that would leave them among the bottom 5 offenses over the course of the season. The pace of the game obscures how great that unit was at the same time that it makes Denver's offense look better than it was. Overall, I'd call it a great defensive performance, a decent offensive performance, and overall a close victory.
With tiebreakers potentially at stake, I'll gladly take it.
