Denver defense - Overhyped

[Breaker]

WOW!! A lot of rubbish being spoken in this thread I'm afraid!!

As a Denver fan, may I offer an opinion on our defense?

All year I was saying that our defense was being underrated, now, I wouldn't say that. But that's only because what people have been saying has changed. In the regular season, everyone was saying that our defense was awful, now people are saying its amazing!! I think the truth lies somewhere in between. (Also our numbers have improved recently)

First off, we have been killed by injuries this year. Vickerson and Wolfe are key run defenders for us. Von Miller is by far our best pass rusher, and when healthy is an elite player. Chris Harris is a very underrated corner, in the conversation for best slot corner in the league. Rahim Moore is unfairly judged on one play - he is a good safety (by far our best) and his loss has also hit us hard. Not to mention the fact that Champ hasn't been healthy all year, and we lost DRC for a while there too. If we were fully healthy on defense, I believe we would have a top 10 unit. People forget that we had the #2 defense last year. Injuries have crippled us.

If you watch our games, you notice something else of note. Whenever we go into zone coverage we get shredded and whenever we go into our prevent defense (typically zone) we get shredded. Our constant use of these tactics, especially late in games when leading, have killed our pass D statistics. Take the AFCCG. We shut them down for 3 quarters, then went into zone coverage and prevent defense and what happens?? Brady produces 2 TD drives. The reasons for this? I think Del Rio and Fox are scared of getting beat deep. We are far better in man to man, but sometimes we give up a big deep throw (courtesy of poor safety play). I don't think our staff have trusted our defense all year, but maybe now they are starting to.

In terms of the SB, I think SEA off v DEN def will be quite even. If Wolfe and Vickerson were playing, I would have no problem saying we would do a good job against Lynch. Without them, I am unsure of how that matchup will play out, as our current front hasn't really played a team that runs as well as Seattle. In general though, our front are much better run stoppers than pass rushers. I see us getting pretty much zero pressure on Wilson. We will likely spy him (as we have done against most mobile QBs), so I think it may come down to whether or not he beats us from the pocket. As for our secondary, I actually give our corners a slight edge in this game, but our safeties are a problem. I definitely see a big deep throw or two available for Wilson in this game. He has to make sure he takes the opportunity unlike Brady!

As a fellow Broncos fan, two things.

1. We still have those injuries, so our defense is what it is. We can say that we are better with all of our guys, and we probably are, but that doesn't mean anything as we are still without everyone.


2. Our Defensive splits completely support your assertion.

1st Qtr 864 yds (20%)
2nd Qtr 1015 yds (25%)
3rd Qtr 871 yds (20%)
4th Qtr 1474 yds (35%)

But the most telling stat is the following stat. It is a stat that calculates opponent passing stats against Denver's D based on the opponents winning percentage at the time that those yards were collected. Obviously this means that a low winning percentage means the Broncos defense is most likely staying back and playing it safe.

#Pl Att Cmp% Yds TD
0-19% 416 57.5 2681 16
20-39% 106 58.5 702 5
40-59% 65 64.6 467 6
60-79% 26 73.1 245 3
80-99% 27 48.1 164 1

Total 4259 31

An absolutely shocking 63% of yards given up by the Broncos defense in terms of passing yards occurred when their opponents had less than a 20% chance of winning. 52% of TD's given up are the same.

 

[Breaker]

Denver faced 2 top 10 defenses all year (HOU, NYG).

Seahawks faced 8 (CAR, NOLA, NYG, HOU, SF 2x, AZ 2x).


/Endthread

Denver faced 4 top 10 offenses
Seattle faced 1

You point?

Actually going by end-season final DVOA (which is a far superior measure than simple NFL yardage stats), Seattle is the #7 offense in the league and has faced the following top ten offenses:

New Orleans (twice) #5
San Fran (three times) #8
Carolina #10

That's because you have to measure offenses against defenses facing them. By contrast Denver has faced (offenses):

Philly #2
San Diego (three times) #3
New England (twice) #4


Now let's turn it around. How man top ten defenses has Denver faced by the same measure? [Denver's defense by this measure is #15]

New York Giants #6
Baltimore #7
KC #9

By contrast Seattle's defense is a resounding #1 (in fact the difference between Seattle and #2 Arizona is almost as much as the Arizona to the 0% replacement value!). Seattle's offense has faced the following top ten defenses:

Arizona (twice) #2
Carolina #3
New York Giants #6 (and we shut them out at their place)
Tampa Bay #8
New Orleans #10 (twice)

One might almost ask when Seattle has NOT faced a top ten offense.

Sorry but Seattle is far more battle tested than Denver. That's not hype. It's just the truth.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Seriously dude? In this VERY thread you claim that you have to go week to week DVOA in order to account for WHEN YOU PLAY THEM, then not three seconds later you say the end of the year DVOA is the true measure of the statistics? Classic cherry picking Seahawks fan, you can not even go ONE THREAD without completely contradicting yourself in terms of how you view the stats, you just have to change the argument in order to try to come out on top .. that is pathetic.

 

[aulaza]

WOW!! A lot of rubbish being spoken in this thread I'm afraid!!

As a Denver fan, may I offer an opinion on our defense?

All year I was saying that our defense was being underrated, now, I wouldn't say that. But that's only because what people have been saying has changed. In the regular season, everyone was saying that our defense was awful, now people are saying its amazing!! I think the truth lies somewhere in between. (Also our numbers have improved recently)

First off, we have been killed by injuries this year. Vickerson and Wolfe are key run defenders for us. Von Miller is by far our best pass rusher, and when healthy is an elite player. Chris Harris is a very underrated corner, in the conversation for best slot corner in the league. Rahim Moore is unfairly judged on one play - he is a good safety (by far our best) and his loss has also hit us hard. Not to mention the fact that Champ hasn't been healthy all year, and we lost DRC for a while there too. If we were fully healthy on defense, I believe we would have a top 10 unit. People forget that we had the #2 defense last year. Injuries have crippled us.

If you watch our games, you notice something else of note. Whenever we go into zone coverage we get shredded and whenever we go into our prevent defense (typically zone) we get shredded. Our constant use of these tactics, especially late in games when leading, have killed our pass D statistics. Take the AFCCG. We shut them down for 3 quarters, then went into zone coverage and prevent defense and what happens?? Brady produces 2 TD drives. The reasons for this? I think Del Rio and Fox are scared of getting beat deep. We are far better in man to man, but sometimes we give up a big deep throw (courtesy of poor safety play). I don't think our staff have trusted our defense all year, but maybe now they are starting to.

In terms of the SB, I think SEA off v DEN def will be quite even. If Wolfe and Vickerson were playing, I would have no problem saying we would do a good job against Lynch. Without them, I am unsure of how that matchup will play out, as our current front hasn't really played a team that runs as well as Seattle. In general though, our front are much better run stoppers than pass rushers. I see us getting pretty much zero pressure on Wilson. We will likely spy him (as we have done against most mobile QBs), so I think it may come down to whether or not he beats us from the pocket. As for our secondary, I actually give our corners a slight edge in this game, but our safeties are a problem. I definitely see a big deep throw or two available for Wilson in this game. He has to make sure he takes the opportunity unlike Brady!

As a fellow Broncos fan, two things.

1. We still have those injuries, so our defense is what it is. We can say that we are better with all of our guys, and we probably are, but that doesn't mean anything as we are still without everyone.


2. Our Defensive splits completely support your assertion.

1st Qtr 864 yds (20%)
2nd Qtr 1015 yds (25%)
3rd Qtr 871 yds (20%)
4th Qtr 1474 yds (35%)

But the most telling stat is the following stat. It is a stat that calculates opponent passing stats against Denver's D based on the opponents winning percentage at the time that those yards were collected. Obviously this means that a low winning percentage means the Broncos defense is most likely staying back and playing it safe.

#Pl Att Cmp% Yds TD
0-19% 416 57.5 2681 16
20-39% 106 58.5 702 5
40-59% 65 64.6 467 6
60-79% 26 73.1 245 3
80-99% 27 48.1 164 1

Total 4259 31

An absolutely shocking 63% of yards given up by the Broncos defense in terms of passing yards occurred when their opponents had less than a 20% chance of winning. 52% of TD's given up are the same.

Sorry, probably should have made it clearer but I was mentioning the injuries as reasons why we didn't perform all that well in the season. I really believe that if we were fully healthy we would be at least close to as good as we were last year (which people do forget!). I understand that we are what we are now. But early season when we had Vickerson and Wolfe we were stopping the run in nickel because are DLine was so stout, its a shame we don't have that now.

Your stats are interesting and Im not surprised by them at all. I wish you could get one for zone vs man coverage!! Seriously though, can we trust our players more and stop playing this crappy prevent zone Del Rio!!

 

[Breaker]

Denver faced 2 top 10 defenses all year (HOU, NYG).

Seahawks faced 8 (CAR, NOLA, NYG, HOU, SF 2x, AZ 2x).


/Endthread

Denver faced 4 top 10 offenses
Seattle faced 1

You point?

Actually going by end-season final DVOA (which is a far superior measure than simple NFL yardage stats), Seattle is the #7 offense in the league and has faced the following top ten offenses:

New Orleans (twice) #5
San Fran (three times) #8
Carolina #10

That's because you have to measure offenses against defenses facing them. By contrast Denver has faced (offenses):

Philly #2
San Diego (three times) #3
New England (twice) #4


Now let's turn it around. How man top ten defenses has Denver faced by the same measure? [Denver's defense by this measure is #15]

New York Giants #6
Baltimore #7
KC #9

By contrast Seattle's defense is a resounding #1 (in fact the difference between Seattle and #2 Arizona is almost as much as the Arizona to the 0% replacement value!). Seattle's offense has faced the following top ten defenses:

Arizona (twice) #2
Carolina #3
New York Giants #6 (and we shut them out at their place)
Tampa Bay #8
New Orleans #10 (twice)

One might almost ask when Seattle has NOT faced a top ten offense.

Sorry but Seattle is far more battle tested than Denver. That's not hype. It's just the truth.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Where did I EVER claim that Denver had played a bunch of top defense? Go ahead I have only had 5 ish posts, should be bad easy to find out where I did that ........ is that the sound of a cricket? I said that Seattle has faced bad offenses all year, I am correct based on your 31st DVOA sched ranking, which probably leads to an inflated sense of Seattle Defense. I never claimed once that Denver had played top defenses.

As for battle tested, that is purely a matter of opinion, because its not a statistically provable commodity. Battle tested is a perception, for instance who had more serious injuries, it is Denver and it is not even close. Did your coach have a heart attack? Nope. Battle tested means more than just plus and minus in stats.

So lets do this another way ... in weighted ranks which is your argument this time because it encompasses end of the year, but accounts for how teams are playing more recently, which was what you believed the DVOA ranks should represent, thus mitigating longer ago games.

Seahawks

DVOA Total Defense #1 (#31 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Offense #9( #9 DVOA Sched)

Denver Total Offense #1 ( # 30 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Defense #10 ( #24 DVOA Sched)

 

[JFair]

WOW!! A lot of rubbish being spoken in this thread I'm afraid!!

As a Denver fan, may I offer an opinion on our defense?

All year I was saying that our defense was being underrated, now, I wouldn't say that. But that's only because what people have been saying has changed. In the regular season, everyone was saying that our defense was awful, now people are saying its amazing!! I think the truth lies somewhere in between. (Also our numbers have improved recently)

First off, we have been killed by injuries this year. Vickerson and Wolfe are key run defenders for us. Von Miller is by far our best pass rusher, and when healthy is an elite player. Chris Harris is a very underrated corner, in the conversation for best slot corner in the league. Rahim Moore is unfairly judged on one play - he is a good safety (by far our best) and his loss has also hit us hard. Not to mention the fact that Champ hasn't been healthy all year, and we lost DRC for a while there too. If we were fully healthy on defense, I believe we would have a top 10 unit. People forget that we had the #2 defense last year. Injuries have crippled us.

If you watch our games, you notice something else of note. Whenever we go into zone coverage we get shredded and whenever we go into our prevent defense (typically zone) we get shredded. Our constant use of these tactics, especially late in games when leading, have killed our pass D statistics. Take the AFCCG. We shut them down for 3 quarters, then went into zone coverage and prevent defense and what happens?? Brady produces 2 TD drives. The reasons for this? I think Del Rio and Fox are scared of getting beat deep. We are far better in man to man, but sometimes we give up a big deep throw (courtesy of poor safety play). I don't think our staff have trusted our defense all year, but maybe now they are starting to.

In terms of the SB, I think SEA off v DEN def will be quite even. If Wolfe and Vickerson were playing, I would have no problem saying we would do a good job against Lynch. Without them, I am unsure of how that matchup will play out, as our current front hasn't really played a team that runs as well as Seattle. In general though, our front are much better run stoppers than pass rushers. I see us getting pretty much zero pressure on Wilson. We will likely spy him (as we have done against most mobile QBs), so I think it may come down to whether or not he beats us from the pocket. As for our secondary, I actually give our corners a slight edge in this game, but our safeties are a problem. I definitely see a big deep throw or two available for Wilson in this game. He has to make sure he takes the opportunity unlike Brady!

As a fellow Broncos fan, two things.

1. We still have those injuries, so our defense is what it is. We can say that we are better with all of our guys, and we probably are, but that doesn't mean anything as we are still without everyone.


2. Our Defensive splits completely support your assertion.

1st Qtr 864 yds (20%)
2nd Qtr 1015 yds (25%)
3rd Qtr 871 yds (20%)
4th Qtr 1474 yds (35%)

But the most telling stat is the following stat. It is a stat that calculates opponent passing stats against Denver's D based on the opponents winning percentage at the time that those yards were collected. Obviously this means that a low winning percentage means the Broncos defense is most likely staying back and playing it safe.

#Pl Att Cmp% Yds TD
0-19% 416 57.5 2681 16
20-39% 106 58.5 702 5
40-59% 65 64.6 467 6
60-79% 26 73.1 245 3
80-99% 27 48.1 164 1

Total 4259 31

An absolutely shocking 63% of yards given up by the Broncos defense in terms of passing yards occurred when their opponents had less than a 20% chance of winning. 52% of TD's given up are the same.

Or maybe it means you play a lot of teams with losing records?

 

[Breaker]

WOW!! A lot of rubbish being spoken in this thread I'm afraid!!

As a Denver fan, may I offer an opinion on our defense?

All year I was saying that our defense was being underrated, now, I wouldn't say that. But that's only because what people have been saying has changed. In the regular season, everyone was saying that our defense was awful, now people are saying its amazing!! I think the truth lies somewhere in between. (Also our numbers have improved recently)

First off, we have been killed by injuries this year. Vickerson and Wolfe are key run defenders for us. Von Miller is by far our best pass rusher, and when healthy is an elite player. Chris Harris is a very underrated corner, in the conversation for best slot corner in the league. Rahim Moore is unfairly judged on one play - he is a good safety (by far our best) and his loss has also hit us hard. Not to mention the fact that Champ hasn't been healthy all year, and we lost DRC for a while there too. If we were fully healthy on defense, I believe we would have a top 10 unit. People forget that we had the #2 defense last year. Injuries have crippled us.

If you watch our games, you notice something else of note. Whenever we go into zone coverage we get shredded and whenever we go into our prevent defense (typically zone) we get shredded. Our constant use of these tactics, especially late in games when leading, have killed our pass D statistics. Take the AFCCG. We shut them down for 3 quarters, then went into zone coverage and prevent defense and what happens?? Brady produces 2 TD drives. The reasons for this? I think Del Rio and Fox are scared of getting beat deep. We are far better in man to man, but sometimes we give up a big deep throw (courtesy of poor safety play). I don't think our staff have trusted our defense all year, but maybe now they are starting to.

In terms of the SB, I think SEA off v DEN def will be quite even. If Wolfe and Vickerson were playing, I would have no problem saying we would do a good job against Lynch. Without them, I am unsure of how that matchup will play out, as our current front hasn't really played a team that runs as well as Seattle. In general though, our front are much better run stoppers than pass rushers. I see us getting pretty much zero pressure on Wilson. We will likely spy him (as we have done against most mobile QBs), so I think it may come down to whether or not he beats us from the pocket. As for our secondary, I actually give our corners a slight edge in this game, but our safeties are a problem. I definitely see a big deep throw or two available for Wilson in this game. He has to make sure he takes the opportunity unlike Brady!

As a fellow Broncos fan, two things.

1. We still have those injuries, so our defense is what it is. We can say that we are better with all of our guys, and we probably are, but that doesn't mean anything as we are still without everyone.


2. Our Defensive splits completely support your assertion.

1st Qtr 864 yds (20%)
2nd Qtr 1015 yds (25%)
3rd Qtr 871 yds (20%)
4th Qtr 1474 yds (35%)

But the most telling stat is the following stat. It is a stat that calculates opponent passing stats against Denver's D based on the opponents winning percentage at the time that those yards were collected. Obviously this means that a low winning percentage means the Broncos defense is most likely staying back and playing it safe.

#Pl Att Cmp% Yds TD
0-19% 416 57.5 2681 16
20-39% 106 58.5 702 5
40-59% 65 64.6 467 6
60-79% 26 73.1 245 3
80-99% 27 48.1 164 1

Total 4259 31

An absolutely shocking 63% of yards given up by the Broncos defense in terms of passing yards occurred when their opponents had less than a 20% chance of winning. 52% of TD's given up are the same.

Or maybe it means you play a lot of teams with losing records?

How does a teams record have any statistical impact on the amount of yards given up by Denver by quarter? The game between Denver and that team are completely independent in every way from win loss record for both teams, they don't matter........

Wait I think I understand your confusion. At the start of each game, hypothetically, whether you win or lose is 50/50. If a team takes a 7-0 lead their winning percentage might go up say 5% if it is an opening kickoff. The longer that 7-0 lead holds, the greater the winning percentage for that team in that game because there is less time for the losing team to come back. The above stats say that if you take the Broncos/ Redskins game, the Redskins had a specific percentage change of winning based on the score and time. So at some point, Washington had a 19% or less chance of winning the game based on score and time left. During this time period, all stats accumulated yardage and TD's, would be calculated under that percentage. Now the important thing to remember is that if they get the ball with less than a 19% chance of winning and score a TD 6 minutes later, that TD probably has not changed their win percentage because although they are closer, they are still down by enough due to score distance and time. So if they are down 24 with 8 minutes left and they get the ball, they might have a 15% chance of winning. They go on a 80 yd 5 minute drive and score 7, they are only losing by 17 now, however they have lost 5 of the 8 minutes so their win percentage has now dropped to say 3%. This shows that for a majority of the time, the Broncos defense, cumulatively, put their opponents in a position to win less than 19% of the time, and when their opponents had less than a 19% of winning, those were the stats that they accumulated against our pass defense. At least that is how I am reading that statistic, if I am wrong someone pleas correct me.

 

[Polaris]

Lets look at the team defense DVOA for all of those games and I will use a good metric to prevent an argument. First column with be Team DVOA Defense.

Game 1: Carolina 43 (#6)
Game 2: Hou 98 yds (#18)

Carolina at week 4 (the soonest defensive adjustments were added into the metric and thus the closest fair measurement to week one) had a DVOA on defense of -9.4% which at the time was tenth (but would wind up being much higher than that in the end with the same percentage). Houston (and Seattle's week 4 opponent was Houston) had a defensive DVOA of -16.1% (which is extremely good) and rated fifth (not 18th) at this time.

Game 3: Indy 102 (#17)

Indy's defensive DVOA after week five was #17 that week. That is true. It was also -2.6% which would wind up being better than KC had it been sustained. A lot of defenses bottomed out (Indy's was one of them) late in the season. I also note that at that time Indy had an offensive DVOA of 21.4% which was fourth in the league. So much for Seattle "not facing a top offense" (and the game was won on the strength of an Indy special teams TD).

Game 4: ARI 91 ( #1)

Arizona's defensive DVOA was #5 at the end of week 7, not #1 (don't know where you got that!) but it WAS a whopping -10.0%

Game 5: STL 23 (#12)

Actually at the time (week 8) StL had a #24 DVOA rating on defense at 3.7%. This game was a stinker for Seattle, no question (and I don't think anyone here would dispute that)

Game 6: ATL 145 ( #29)

At week 9 (when this matchup happened), Atlanta's defensive DVOA was 13.4% or #30 and I agree it was a trash defense.

Game 7: San Fran 72 (#13)

Actually San Fran's Defense after week 14 (when this matchup happened) was #7 or -8.6%. I also note that San Fran's run defense is stellar and very few backs get even 72 yards on San Fran.

Game 8: Giants 47 ( #3)

After week 15, the defensive DVOA of the Giants was -8.6% or #9

Average Team Defense DVOA against the run is #12 for these games. The numbers are even more in my favor after doing this.

Now you are switching things up. You claimed team DVOA not DVOA against the run. I also point out that you can't just average placements. For example if you averaged the placements of Seattle, Arizona, and Carolina on defense using DVOA placements you'd get 2. However that number would be completely misleading because Seattle had (at season's end) a defensive DVOA of -25.8 while Arizona had a much smaller -16.4 (an 8.4% difference) while Carolina had a -15.7% rating (only 0.7 less than Arizona).

So this entire analysis is completely misleading and flawed.

Lynch had 621 total yards

276 vs DVOA top 16 teams (43% of total representing 5 games)
345 vs DVOA bottom 16 (57% of total representing 3 games)

Again that's not how it works. If you wanted to be fair, you should measure yards gained against teams with a below replacement value defense (better than average) and an above replacement value defense (worse than average).

When you do it that way, you find that of the eight road games, six teams had NEGATIVE (that's good for defense) DVOA's for 6 of the 8. Only St Louis and Atlanta are the stinkers. That changes your math a bit. That's also ignoring the disparity between the various teams which is a no-no as I allude to above.

Lynch ran on the road for 463 against teams with better than replacement value defenses. He ran for a mere 168 against the two teams with a worse than replacement value defense all measured when the games were played.

So by your own metrics Lynch had 57% of his road rushing stats against sub-par DVOA Team Defenses, which is actually a greater percentage than the 54% of my original post. Now speaking to the original post that I was responding too, I used the exact same metrics that he used, which were actually team defense vs run and pass metrics, which I didn’t feel like pointing out to the dumbass, but you seem to be a smarter individual so I will go by your statistical measures.

You are wrong. See above. Be careful about calling people names unless you are sure you're right. You're not.

Now speaking to your other point about having to do it when you play them. I would agree, if you can find week by week DVOA stats and show me I am wrong, I will admit to it.

I think you owe me an apology then.

But here is the stat that is absolutely priceless, it is going to make you cringe when you realize hear this. On FOB they have a ranking in the team defense category called SCHED, which according to FOB “SCHEDULE represents the average offensive DVOA of all opponents, with teams ranked from hardest schedule to easiest schedule” Guess where Seattle falls on that list … 31st. That’s right the vaunted Seattle defense faced teams with offenses over the course of 16 games that gave their defense the 2nd easiest DVOA schedule in the league. Denver wasn’t much better at #24, but still better. I have been of the opinion that Seattle D could be overrated for a long time. You faced 8 backup QBS, faced only one of the top 10 QB’s Statistically. Other gems I investigated about you vaunted defense.

Actually Seattle's 2013 Schedule is -0.5 which rates as 17th in the NFL. Wanna know what Denver's is?

-6.7% which is 31st in the entire league.

Don't tell me that Denver has faced better teams. It's just not true. I also note when talking about offenses that you neglected to show the raw numbers. I am going to bet that #24 and #31 aren't all that far apart.

Now, wanna do it the other way? Let's talk about the SCHED that your vaunted offensive has faced. It's not a pretty picture.

44 Team Sacks

5 (11%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
17 (39%) against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
22 (50%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines

Denver stats on this:

41 Sacks (despite losing Von Miller for more than half the year)

15 (37%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
14 (34% )against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
12 (29%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines

Yea, that’s right, 50% of your sacks for the year came against teams ranked 22 or below in offensive pass protection DVOA, you fed of bottom feeders and didn't even average 2 sacks a game against top 11 teams. You want to know where Denver is ranked, #1 pass protection DVOA offensive line. I find it laughable that Seattle fans just assume that they will get pressure on Manning like it is a forgone conclusion, that Denver has no chance to stop you. Denver led the league in plays per game, we run a no huddle faster than the vaunted Eagles offense. Seattle fans love to talk about their rotation, but tell me this? How are you going to rotate if you can’t get off the field? That leaves tired, huge Dline men going up against the best DVOA pass protecting line and Manning sitting back there all day. No secondary on earth can hold up consistently under those conditions for more than 4-5 seconds.

That's all true and completely misleading. I notice you didn't include the numbers for knockdowns and hurries. Seattle leads the league in QB hurries.

I am not usually the type to talk trash, except to Pats fans cause I hate them. I actually like the Seahawks and I LOVE Russell Wilson, and hate Kaepernick. If my BRONCOS … yea not a 49ers fan at all, have to lose to a team in the NFC, I would rather it be the Seahawks than anyone else, you do have the coolest uniforms in the league btw. However, I cannot abide by the sheer arrogance of a majority of Seahawk fans that I see on this board. I realize that your franchise hasn’t “been there” very often so you don’t really know how to be optimistic without coming across as arrogant jackasses, especially when actually stats call into question your assertion that you have the best defense in the league, as shown earlier.

It's really not arrogance. Seattle is simply a horrible matchup for Denver. We saw it briefly in the pre-season and we'll see it again in a bit more than a week. It's not arrogance when it's true.

All that said, I expect a close game and would not be surprised if the Seahawks win, I don’t think they will, however I do expect it close. I believe the game will come down to 4 things.

1. Seattle Defense getting pressure on Manning: As proven in this post, it WILL be harder than you think. If you don’t get pressure it wont matter how good your secondary is and our no huddle is brutal.

I don't expect to sack Manning often if at all. However, Seattle doesn't have to. All Seattle has to do is force him off his spot. Manning's own numbers show that when he's hurried or forced to move (even a little) his numbers plummet to mortal levels. Yes the Bronco's O-Line is very good at pass-pro, but your receivers do NOT handle press coverage very well at all. Indy showed this. So did San Diego. Seattle specializes in press coverage and very tight windows. All it takes is an extra half second.....

2. Containing Wilson – I think we can do an adequate job of bottling up Lynch, as long as we don’t let Wilson extend the play to much by scrambling. Outside of Harvin I am not worried about any of your receivers.

None of the QBs you've faced other than RG3 have Wilson's ability to extend plays and scramble. Look back at the AFCCG and all the Green Grass in front of Brady. Heck Brady RAN IN a TD on you guys. If Brady can do that, you don't want to think about what Wilson will do to you. As for Lynch, Lynch runs extremely well even against the stoutest of run defenses. Your run defense is adequate, but it doesn't hold a candle to San Fran's.

3. Avoid turnovers – our biggest problem all year has been the insane turnovers, if the Seahawks don’t get at least one, I don’t believe that have any chance

I think Seattle will get at least two esp if PFM insists on throwing it into the LoB. You were telling me about arrogance?? If you go by the advanced analytics (DVOA), the estimate on a neutral field is that Seattle will win 58% of the time btw so "don't have a chance" is pretty damned arrogant IMO.

4. Harvin - Don't let Harvin beat us ... I am worried that Harvin is too good for any of our corners. However, if for some reason Wilson force feeds the ball to him, it could get problematic for the Hawks.

Wilson doesn't make that kind of mistake and if you've followed him lately you'd know that. I also note that Harvin can be fed the ball in a lot of ways. What's more he's a complete wild card. We don't need him to win, but he's sure nice to have.

 

[Polaris]

Denver faced 2 top 10 defenses all year (HOU, NYG).

Seahawks faced 8 (CAR, NOLA, NYG, HOU, SF 2x, AZ 2x).


/Endthread

Denver faced 4 top 10 offenses
Seattle faced 1

You point?

Actually going by end-season final DVOA (which is a far superior measure than simple NFL yardage stats), Seattle is the #7 offense in the league and has faced the following top ten offenses:

New Orleans (twice) #5
San Fran (three times) #8
Carolina #10

That's because you have to measure offenses against defenses facing them. By contrast Denver has faced (offenses):

Philly #2
San Diego (three times) #3
New England (twice) #4


Now let's turn it around. How man top ten defenses has Denver faced by the same measure? [Denver's defense by this measure is #15]

New York Giants #6
Baltimore #7
KC #9

By contrast Seattle's defense is a resounding #1 (in fact the difference between Seattle and #2 Arizona is almost as much as the Arizona to the 0% replacement value!). Seattle's offense has faced the following top ten defenses:

Arizona (twice) #2
Carolina #3
New York Giants #6 (and we shut them out at their place)
Tampa Bay #8
New Orleans #10 (twice)

One might almost ask when Seattle has NOT faced a top ten offense.

Sorry but Seattle is far more battle tested than Denver. That's not hype. It's just the truth.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Seriously dude? In this VERY thread you claim that you have to go week to week DVOA in order to account for WHEN YOU PLAY THEM, then not three seconds later you say the end of the year DVOA is the true measure of the statistics? Classic cherry picking Seahawks fan, you can not even go ONE THREAD without completely contradicting yourself in terms of how you view the stats, you just have to change the argument in order to try to come out on top .. that is pathetic.

I specified the measure, but you're right. Let's look at it. How many top ten offenses has Seattle played at the time by DVOA (btw I note that the weighted DVOA of Seattle has actually gone up while Denver's has gone down vs unadjusted DVOA. This is significant because it reflects how well teams have done LATELY.)

I am going to group the first four at once since "D" (the adjustments) can only be done after week four. It's the best I can do to make sure we keep measuring apples to apples.
To reinterate, these are team offensive DVOAs when they were played.

Seattle faced @Car, SF, Jax, @Hou

Those offensive DVOAs were 13.7% (#8) [Car], 0.6% (#17)[SF], -67.1%(#32)[Jax], -4.8%(#22)[Hou]

That's one top ten offense right there.

Week 5, @Indy: 21.4% (#4)...that's another top ten offense
Week 6, Tenn: -4.3% (#19)
Week 7, @Arz: -15.1% (#21)
Week 8, @StL: -13.6% (#24)
Week 9, TB: -8.8% (#22)
Week 10, @ATL: 6.9% (#11).....not quite but a near miss
Week 11, MIN: -9.3% (#23)
Week 13, NO: 16.5% (#4)....another top ten offense
Week 14, @SF: 4.4% (#14)
Week 15, @NYG: -20.8% (#29)
Week 16, ARZ: -3.3% (#20)
Week 17, StL: -9.6% (#22)

So during the regular season, Seattle has faced three top ten offenses when we've faced them. What's more let's continue this:

Div Rd, NO: 20.0% (#5)
NFCCG, SF: 10.1% (#8)...forced to use week 19 data since week 20 data for SF not listed.

That's two more top ten offenses in the playoffs.

I think I made my point here.

 

[Polaris]

So lets do this another way ... in weighted ranks which is your argument this time because it encompasses end of the year, but accounts for how teams are playing more recently, which was what you believed the DVOA ranks should represent, thus mitigating longer ago games.

Seahawks

DVOA Total Defense #1 (#31 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Offense #9( #9 DVOA Sched)

Denver Total Offense #1 ( # 30 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Defense #10 ( #24 DVOA Sched)

Nope. Going through week 20 (now) the non-weighted and weighted ratings DVOA for both teams look like:

TEAM DVOA RANK OFF-DVOA OFF.RANK DEF-DVOA DEF.RANK S.T.DVOA S.T.RANK
DEN 33.1% 2 32.8% 1 -0.6% 14 -0.3% 18
DEN* 28.2% 4 29.6% 3 -4.2% 13 -5.6% 26
SEA 38.6% 1 7.5% 11 -25.2% 1 5.9% 5
SEA* 46.4% 1 6.6% 9 -29.3% 1 10.5% 4

* These are the weighted results which ignore early games in the season and thus weight for how the teams have performed in recent games.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Edit PS: The final overall Schedule rating for Seattle at the end of the season was -0.5%. That rates as #17. Denver's was -6.7 which rates as #31 or second worst in the league.

For Seattle's defense, the sched is -3.7 which is #31 but Denver's is -2.1 which is tied with San Fran's at #24. It's also almost as bad as Seattle's. (By contrast compare the NYG with the #1 sched at 7.3 or StL at #6 with 1.7%.) This tells me that the more successful a team is, the worse the sched number looks when split this way.

For your offense, you gloss over (you note it but gloss over) the fact that your Sched is #30 which means (as we've pointed out) that Denver has played some crud defenses over the season. That Sched number is 4.2. By contrast Seattle's Sched is -3.1 (a much stiffer schedule) for Sched rating of #9.

This confirms what I just stated above in my edit. Seattle has faced a much sterner test and faced much better defenses than Denver has, and it's the defense that matters esp in the playoffs.

 

[Breaker]

Lets look at the team defense DVOA for all of those games and I will use a good metric to prevent an argument. First column with be Team DVOA Defense.

Game 1: Carolina 43 (#6)
Game 2: Hou 98 yds (#18)

Carolina at week 4 (the soonest defensive adjustments were added into the metric and thus the closest fair measurement to week one) had a DVOA on defense of -9.4% which at the time was tenth (but would wind up being much higher than that in the end with the same percentage). Houston (and Seattle's week 4 opponent was Houston) had a defensive DVOA of -16.1% (which is extremely good) and rated fifth (not 18th) at this time.

Game 3: Indy 102 (#17)

Indy's defensive DVOA after week five was #17 that week. That is true. It was also -2.6% which would wind up being better than KC had it been sustained. A lot of defenses bottomed out (Indy's was one of them) late in the season. I also note that at that time Indy had an offensive DVOA of 21.4% which was fourth in the league. So much for Seattle "not facing a top offense" (and the game was won on the strength of an Indy special teams TD).

Game 4: ARI 91 ( #1)

Arizona's defensive DVOA was #5 at the end of week 7, not #1 (don't know where you got that!) but it WAS a whopping -10.0%

Game 5: STL 23 (#12)

Actually at the time (week 8) StL had a #24 DVOA rating on defense at 3.7%. This game was a stinker for Seattle, no question (and I don't think anyone here would dispute that)

Game 6: ATL 145 ( #29)

At week 9 (when this matchup happened), Atlanta's defensive DVOA was 13.4% or #30 and I agree it was a trash defense.

Game 7: San Fran 72 (#13)

Actually San Fran's Defense after week 14 (when this matchup happened) was #7 or -8.6%. I also note that San Fran's run defense is stellar and very few backs get even 72 yards on San Fran.

Game 8: Giants 47 ( #3)

After week 15, the defensive DVOA of the Giants was -8.6% or #9

Average Team Defense DVOA against the run is #12 for these games. The numbers are even more in my favor after doing this.

Now you are switching things up. You claimed team DVOA not DVOA against the run. I also point out that you can't just average placements. For example if you averaged the placements of Seattle, Arizona, and Carolina on defense using DVOA placements you'd get 2. However that number would be completely misleading because Seattle had (at season's end) a defensive DVOA of -25.8 while Arizona had a much smaller -16.4 (an 8.4% difference) while Carolina had a -15.7% rating (only 0.7 less than Arizona).

So this entire analysis is completely misleading and flawed.

Lynch had 621 total yards

276 vs DVOA top 16 teams (43% of total representing 5 games)
345 vs DVOA bottom 16 (57% of total representing 3 games)

Again that's not how it works. If you wanted to be fair, you should measure yards gained against teams with a below replacement value defense (better than average) and an above replacement value defense (worse than average).

When you do it that way, you find that of the eight road games, six teams had NEGATIVE (that's good for defense) DVOA's for 6 of the 8. Only St Louis and Atlanta are the stinkers. That changes your math a bit. That's also ignoring the disparity between the various teams which is a no-no as I allude to above.

Lynch ran on the road for 463 against teams with better than replacement value defenses. He ran for a mere 168 against the two teams with a worse than replacement value defense all measured when the games were played.

So by your own metrics Lynch had 57% of his road rushing stats against sub-par DVOA Team Defenses, which is actually a greater percentage than the 54% of my original post. Now speaking to the original post that I was responding too, I used the exact same metrics that he used, which were actually team defense vs run and pass metrics, which I didn’t feel like pointing out to the dumbass, but you seem to be a smarter individual so I will go by your statistical measures.

You are wrong. See above. Be careful about calling people names unless you are sure you're right. You're not.

Now speaking to your other point about having to do it when you play them. I would agree, if you can find week by week DVOA stats and show me I am wrong, I will admit to it.

I think you owe me an apology then.

But here is the stat that is absolutely priceless, it is going to make you cringe when you realize hear this. On FOB they have a ranking in the team defense category called SCHED, which according to FOB “SCHEDULE represents the average offensive DVOA of all opponents, with teams ranked from hardest schedule to easiest schedule” Guess where Seattle falls on that list … 31st. That’s right the vaunted Seattle defense faced teams with offenses over the course of 16 games that gave their defense the 2nd easiest DVOA schedule in the league. Denver wasn’t much better at #24, but still better. I have been of the opinion that Seattle D could be overrated for a long time. You faced 8 backup QBS, faced only one of the top 10 QB’s Statistically. Other gems I investigated about you vaunted defense.

Actually Seattle's 2013 Schedule is -0.5 which rates as 17th in the NFL. Wanna know what Denver's is?

-6.7% which is 31st in the entire league.

Don't tell me that Denver has faced better teams. It's just not true. I also note when talking about offenses that you neglected to show the raw numbers. I am going to bet that #24 and #31 aren't all that far apart.

Now, wanna do it the other way? Let's talk about the SCHED that your vaunted offensive has faced. It's not a pretty picture.

44 Team Sacks

5 (11%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
17 (39%) against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
22 (50%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines

Denver stats on this:

41 Sacks (despite losing Von Miller for more than half the year)

15 (37%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
14 (34% )against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
12 (29%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines

Yea, that’s right, 50% of your sacks for the year came against teams ranked 22 or below in offensive pass protection DVOA, you fed of bottom feeders and didn't even average 2 sacks a game against top 11 teams. You want to know where Denver is ranked, #1 pass protection DVOA offensive line. I find it laughable that Seattle fans just assume that they will get pressure on Manning like it is a forgone conclusion, that Denver has no chance to stop you. Denver led the league in plays per game, we run a no huddle faster than the vaunted Eagles offense. Seattle fans love to talk about their rotation, but tell me this? How are you going to rotate if you can’t get off the field? That leaves tired, huge Dline men going up against the best DVOA pass protecting line and Manning sitting back there all day. No secondary on earth can hold up consistently under those conditions for more than 4-5 seconds.

That's all true and completely misleading. I notice you didn't include the numbers for knockdowns and hurries. Seattle leads the league in QB hurries.

I am not usually the type to talk trash, except to Pats fans cause I hate them. I actually like the Seahawks and I LOVE Russell Wilson, and hate Kaepernick. If my BRONCOS … yea not a 49ers fan at all, have to lose to a team in the NFC, I would rather it be the Seahawks than anyone else, you do have the coolest uniforms in the league btw. However, I cannot abide by the sheer arrogance of a majority of Seahawk fans that I see on this board. I realize that your franchise hasn’t “been there” very often so you don’t really know how to be optimistic without coming across as arrogant jackasses, especially when actually stats call into question your assertion that you have the best defense in the league, as shown earlier.

It's really not arrogance. Seattle is simply a horrible matchup for Denver. We saw it briefly in the pre-season and we'll see it again in a bit more than a week. It's not arrogance when it's true.

All that said, I expect a close game and would not be surprised if the Seahawks win, I don’t think they will, however I do expect it close. I believe the game will come down to 4 things.

1. Seattle Defense getting pressure on Manning: As proven in this post, it WILL be harder than you think. If you don’t get pressure it wont matter how good your secondary is and our no huddle is brutal.

I don't expect to sack Manning often if at all. However, Seattle doesn't have to. All Seattle has to do is force him off his spot. Manning's own numbers show that when he's hurried or forced to move (even a little) his numbers plummet to mortal levels. Yes the Bronco's O-Line is very good at pass-pro, but your receivers do NOT handle press coverage very well at all. Indy showed this. So did San Diego. Seattle specializes in press coverage and very tight windows. All it takes is an extra half second.....

2. Containing Wilson – I think we can do an adequate job of bottling up Lynch, as long as we don’t let Wilson extend the play to much by scrambling. Outside of Harvin I am not worried about any of your receivers.

None of the QBs you've faced other than RG3 have Wilson's ability to extend plays and scramble. Look back at the AFCCG and all the Green Grass in front of Brady. Heck Brady RAN IN a TD on you guys. If Brady can do that, you don't want to think about what Wilson will do to you. As for Lynch, Lynch runs extremely well even against the stoutest of run defenses. Your run defense is adequate, but it doesn't hold a candle to San Fran's.

3. Avoid turnovers – our biggest problem all year has been the insane turnovers, if the Seahawks don’t get at least one, I don’t believe that have any chance

I think Seattle will get at least two esp if PFM insists on throwing it into the LoB. You were telling me about arrogance?? If you go by the advanced analytics (DVOA), the estimate on a neutral field is that Seattle will win 58% of the time btw so "don't have a chance" is pretty damned arrogant IMO.

4. Harvin - Don't let Harvin beat us ... I am worried that Harvin is too good for any of our corners. However, if for some reason Wilson force feeds the ball to him, it could get problematic for the Hawks.

Wilson doesn't make that kind of mistake and if you've followed him lately you'd know that. I also note that Harvin can be fed the ball in a lot of ways. What's more he's a complete wild card. We don't need him to win, but he's sure nice to have.

No, you are wrong. I admitted freely that my numbers were end of the year numbers, as I had no access to and could not find the DVOA numbers by week. Secondly, I did use the DVOA Defensive rush rank numbers. If you look at the rank at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef you will see that the Weighted Average, which was not being used by me because it weights more recent games as more important and is a more true account of how team are playing recently. I used the year end, total DVOA Defense Rush Ranks, which in the absence of weekly stats, I should have done because it did not weight recent games higher, it was a more accurate representation of the DVOA Defensive stats for the year. That is why I had AZ at number one with a -24.9, and Carolina at #6 with a -16.7, and the NYG at #3, which was accurate because we were talking about Lynch rushing yards against those 8 defenses. In the absence of weekly information, which I admitted not to have, I was absolutely correct in both my statements and my assertions.

2. I absolutely have every right to deem the original poster that. He used NFL ranks by total yardage, both passing and rushing to try and make his point. Using his exact same metrics, I correctly pointed out that the Texans D was 29 in both passing and rushing combined defense. He made a flawed argument by using total defense ranks to support an argument for Lynch against the run, which would lead to SF being number 4 according to the stats, which is exactly what he claimed. I used exactly his same metrics to keep the argument apples to apples. You told me to use DVOA, which I then used for rush rank as previously explained in the absence of weekly stats. So don't try and tell me I am wrong when I am not.

3 I am absolutely correct about the SCHED. I have no idea where you get the .5, however according to Pro Football Focus, who also uses a DVOA, and POF the Sched rank a negative indicates fewer points scored by the offense , which Seattle at a -3.7 was the second easiest defensive schedule in the league. Since you asked the difference between the 31 and 24 was -3.7-2.1 or 1.6. Once again ... I am correct. On average, the Broncos played higher DVOA offenses than the Seahawks did, that is just a fact. You seem to be confusing strength of schedule of the team with strength of schedule of the defense. The Seahawks defense had the 2nd easiest schedule of opposing offenses in the league. Therefore .. you once again are flat wrong.

You wanted offensive ranks so here they are Denver faced defenses with a 4.2 which is bad offenses, Seattle faced defenses with a -3.4. Once again I never made any sort of claim that Denver faced better defenses than Seattle or that the defense we faced were even good. My only assertion .. once again is that Seattle D had faced bad offenses, which is completely supported by the SCHED ranks on POF.

4. You are wrong on hurries. Seattle did not lead the league with 160 hurries you were 3rd. Detroit with 164 and Min 162 had more according to PFF. As for my stats being misleading, they are to a degree, however in my defense I had to manually go through each game for both teams and look at the game logs for sacks. Those are stats that were not in the game logs for hurries and hits, at least not in the box score so I couldn't break it out by number of hurries and hits against each team as segmented in the top, middle, and bottom 1/3 of the pass protection DVOA offensive lines. You are correct that I should have noted that, my bad.

Anything else?

 

[Breaker]

So lets do this another way ... in weighted ranks which is your argument this time because it encompasses end of the year, but accounts for how teams are playing more recently, which was what you believed the DVOA ranks should represent, thus mitigating longer ago games.

Seahawks

DVOA Total Defense #1 (#31 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Offense #9( #9 DVOA Sched)

Denver Total Offense #1 ( # 30 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Defense #10 ( #24 DVOA Sched)

Nope. Going through week 20 (now) the non-weighted and weighted ratings DVOA for both teams look like:

TEAM DVOA RANK OFF-DVOA OFF.RANK DEF-DVOA DEF.RANK S.T.DVOA S.T.RANK
DEN 33.1% 2 32.8% 1 -0.6% 14 -0.3% 18
DEN* 28.2% 4 29.6% 3 -4.2% 13 -5.6% 26
SEA 38.6% 1 7.5% 11 -25.2% 1 5.9% 5
SEA* 46.4% 1 6.6% 9 -29.3% 1 10.5% 4

* These are the weighted results which ignore early games in the season and thus weight for how the teams have performed in recent games.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Dude STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT. The entire time we have been talking about REGULAR SEASON STATS, NOT PLAYOFFS. You posted through week 20 WHICH INCLUDES THE PLAYOFFS. What part about regular season do you not understand. My stats are as of 12/30/2013. Do not say I am wrong when you clearly changing the argument just to try to be right.

 

[Polaris]

No, you are wrong. I admitted freely that my numbers were end of the year numbers, as I had no access to and could not find the DVOA numbers by week. Secondly, I did use the DVOA Defensive rush rank numbers. If you look at the rank at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef you will see that the Weighted Average, which was not being used by me because it weights more recent games as more important and is a more true account of how team are playing recently. I used the year end, total DVOA Defense Rush Ranks, which in the absence of weekly stats, I should have done because it did not weight recent games higher, it was a more accurate representation of the DVOA Defensive stats for the year. That is why I had AZ at number one with a -24.9, and Carolina at #6 with a -16.7, and the NYG at #3, which was accurate because we were talking about Lynch rushing yards against those 8 defenses. In the absence of weekly information, which I admitted not to have, I was absolutely correct in both my statements and my assertions.

Then you should have STATED you were using the year end rush ranks. You did not. You said you were using total team defensive DVOA. That's a different animal. I also point out, that you demolish your own claim that Lynch only runs well at home. Your own numbers show he doesn't.

2. I absolutely have every right to deem the original poster that. He used NFL ranks by total yardage, both passing and rushing to try and make his point. Using his exact same metrics, I correctly pointed out that the Texans D was 29 in both passing and rushing combined defense. He made a flawed argument by using total defense ranks to support an argument for Lynch against the run, which would lead to SF being number 4 according to the stats, which is exactly what he claimed. I used exactly his same metrics to keep the argument apples to apples. You told me to use DVOA, which I then used for rush rank as previously explained in the absence of weekly stats. So don't try and tell me I am wrong when I am not.

You did what you accused the original poster of. Cherry picking data.

3 I am absolutely correct about the SCHED. I have no idea where you get the .5, however according to Pro Football Focus, who also uses a DVOA, and POF the Sched rank a negative indicates fewer points scored by the offense , which Seattle at a -3.7 was the second easiest defensive schedule in the league. Since you asked the difference between the 31 and 24 was -3.7-2.1 or 1.6. Once again ... I am correct. On average, the Broncos played higher DVOA offenses than the Seahawks did, that is just a fact. You seem to be confusing strength of schedule of the team with strength of schedule of the defense. The Seahawks defense had the 2nd easiest schedule of opposing offenses in the league. Therefore .. you once again are flat wrong.

Ah, but the difference as you note is only 1.6. By contrast when we look at it the other way, the difference is a whopping 7.6. 1.6 is not much of a difference to be frank, but 7.6 is quite a bit. That tells me that Denver played a much easier overall schedule and the numbers do back me on this (Seattle having played the 19th hardest slate by DVOA....NINTH hardest on the offensive side, while Denver played the 31st hardest slate by DVOA).

You wanted offensive ranks so here they are Denver faced defenses with a 4.2 which is bad offenses, Seattle faced defenses with a -3.4. Once again I never made any sort of claim that Denver faced better defenses than Seattle or that the defense we faced were even good. My only assertion .. once again is that Seattle D had faced bad offenses, which is completely supported by the SCHED ranks on POF.

Actually it shows that Denver and Seattle faced offenses just about as bad (1.6 difference isn't much) by DVOA. That makes this analysis almost a wash. The fact that Denver has not faced good Defenses is emphatically not a wash and the composite numbers show this.

4. You are wrong on hurries. Seattle did not lead the league with 160 hurries you were 3rd. Detroit with 164 and Min 162 had more according to PFF. As for my stats being misleading, they are to a degree, however in my defense I had to manually go through each game for both teams and look at the game logs for sacks. Those are stats that were not in the game logs for hurries and hits, at least not in the box score so I couldn't break it out by number of hurries and hits against each team as segmented in the top, middle, and bottom 1/3 of the pass protection DVOA offensive lines. You are correct that I should have noted that, my bad.

I stand corrected then, but the difference between 164 and 160 is pretty small I hope you'd agree, and so my overall point should stand. Certainly of the playoff teams, Seattle was the leader in QB hurries and it matters esp for a QB like Peyton Manning.

Look, I am not saying the game will be a blowout. I am not even saying that Seattle will automatically win, but the advanced stats sure point in that direction. Seattle plays a style of defense that Denver is just ill suited to deal with, and Seattle has played against defenses far stouter than Denver's both in run and pass (including just now with San Fran). That's just the truth. So saying "I don't see how Seattle has much a chance" is showing the exact arrogance that you accuse us of. The way I see it, Seattle has a matchup advantage and saying so isn't being arrogant...especially on a Seattle site.

 

[Breaker]

So lets do this another way ... in weighted ranks which is your argument this time because it encompasses end of the year, but accounts for how teams are playing more recently, which was what you believed the DVOA ranks should represent, thus mitigating longer ago games.

Seahawks

DVOA Total Defense #1 (#31 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Offense #9( #9 DVOA Sched)

Denver Total Offense #1 ( # 30 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Defense #10 ( #24 DVOA Sched)

Nope. Going through week 20 (now) the non-weighted and weighted ratings DVOA for both teams look like:

TEAM DVOA RANK OFF-DVOA OFF.RANK DEF-DVOA DEF.RANK S.T.DVOA S.T.RANK
DEN 33.1% 2 32.8% 1 -0.6% 14 -0.3% 18
DEN* 28.2% 4 29.6% 3 -4.2% 13 -5.6% 26
SEA 38.6% 1 7.5% 11 -25.2% 1 5.9% 5
SEA* 46.4% 1 6.6% 9 -29.3% 1 10.5% 4

* These are the weighted results which ignore early games in the season and thus weight for how the teams have performed in recent games.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Edit PS: The final overall Schedule rating for Seattle at the end of the season was -0.5%. That rates as #17. Denver's was -6.7 which rates as #31 or second worst in the league.

For Seattle's defense, the sched is -3.7 which is #31 but Denver's is -2.1 which is tied with San Fran's at #24. It's also almost as bad as Seattle's. (By contrast compare the NYG with the #1 sched at 7.3 or StL at #6 with 1.7%.) This tells me that the more successful a team is, the worse the sched number looks when split this way.

For your offense, you gloss over (you note it but gloss over) the fact that your Sched is #30 which means (as we've pointed out) that Denver has played some crud defenses over the season. That Sched number is 4.2. By contrast Seattle's Sched is -3.1 (a much stiffer schedule) for Sched rating of #9.

This confirms what I just stated above in my edit. Seattle has faced a much sterner test and faced much better defenses than Denver has, and it's the defense that matters esp in the playoffs.

O my freaking Christ, your edit is exactly all I have been stating the entire time, nothing more. As for which matters in the playoffs, it is one game, what really matters is who plays better, nothing more.

YOU ARE KILLING ME SMALLS

 

[Polaris]

So lets do this another way ... in weighted ranks which is your argument this time because it encompasses end of the year, but accounts for how teams are playing more recently, which was what you believed the DVOA ranks should represent, thus mitigating longer ago games.

Seahawks

DVOA Total Defense #1 (#31 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Offense #9( #9 DVOA Sched)

Denver Total Offense #1 ( # 30 DVOA Sched)
DVOA Total Defense #10 ( #24 DVOA Sched)

Nope. Going through week 20 (now) the non-weighted and weighted ratings DVOA for both teams look like:

TEAM DVOA RANK OFF-DVOA OFF.RANK DEF-DVOA DEF.RANK S.T.DVOA S.T.RANK
DEN 33.1% 2 32.8% 1 -0.6% 14 -0.3% 18
DEN* 28.2% 4 29.6% 3 -4.2% 13 -5.6% 26
SEA 38.6% 1 7.5% 11 -25.2% 1 5.9% 5
SEA* 46.4% 1 6.6% 9 -29.3% 1 10.5% 4

* These are the weighted results which ignore early games in the season and thus weight for how the teams have performed in recent games.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

Dude STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT. The entire time we have been talking about REGULAR SEASON STATS, NOT PLAYOFFS. You posted through week 20 WHICH INCLUDES THE PLAYOFFS. What part about regular season do you not understand. My stats are as of 12/30/2013. Do not say I am wrong when you clearly changing the argument just to try to be right.

It's not a different argument. I am comparing apples to apples. I was using regular season stats to talk about various offenses because not all those teams made the playoffs, but I note that everyone (including you) were including playoff matches to count up how many "top X" offense/defense each team had faced.

However, I'll recopy the same graph for the regular season only (end of) weighed and unweighted.


TEAM DVOA RANK OFF-DVOA OFF.RANK DEF-DVOA DEF.RANK S.T.DVOA S.T.RANK
DEN 32.8% 2 33.7% 1 -0.2% 15 -1.1% 13
DEN* 27.3% 2 21.7% 1 -5.6% 10 -5.3% 28
SEA 40.1% 1 9.4% 7 -25.8% 1 4.8% 3
SEA* 43.7% 1 8.9% 9 -30.0% 1 5.1% 6

*weighted to reflect more importance on later games. (reg season only)

All that said, a week 20 comparison between Den and Sea is fair because both were number one seeds and thus both had two home games and thus a similiar (at least on paper) playoff road. If you compare the regular season numbers I just posted to the post championship numbers I posted earlier, it would seem that Seattle is actually getting BETTER as the playoffs continue and Denver by and large is not.

 

[Breaker]

No, you are wrong. I admitted freely that my numbers were end of the year numbers, as I had no access to and could not find the DVOA numbers by week. Secondly, I did use the DVOA Defensive rush rank numbers. If you look at the rank at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef you will see that the Weighted Average, which was not being used by me because it weights more recent games as more important and is a more true account of how team are playing recently. I used the year end, total DVOA Defense Rush Ranks, which in the absence of weekly stats, I should have done because it did not weight recent games higher, it was a more accurate representation of the DVOA Defensive stats for the year. That is why I had AZ at number one with a -24.9, and Carolina at #6 with a -16.7, and the NYG at #3, which was accurate because we were talking about Lynch rushing yards against those 8 defenses. In the absence of weekly information, which I admitted not to have, I was absolutely correct in both my statements and my assertions.

Then you should have STATED you were using the year end rush ranks. You did not. You said you were using total team defensive DVOA. That's a different animal. I also point out, that you demolish your own claim that Lynch only runs well at home. Your own numbers show he doesn't.

2. I absolutely have every right to deem the original poster that. He used NFL ranks by total yardage, both passing and rushing to try and make his point. Using his exact same metrics, I correctly pointed out that the Texans D was 29 in both passing and rushing combined defense. He made a flawed argument by using total defense ranks to support an argument for Lynch against the run, which would lead to SF being number 4 according to the stats, which is exactly what he claimed. I used exactly his same metrics to keep the argument apples to apples. You told me to use DVOA, which I then used for rush rank as previously explained in the absence of weekly stats. So don't try and tell me I am wrong when I am not.

You did what you accused the original poster of. Cherry picking data.

3 I am absolutely correct about the SCHED. I have no idea where you get the .5, however according to Pro Football Focus, who also uses a DVOA, and POF the Sched rank a negative indicates fewer points scored by the offense , which Seattle at a -3.7 was the second easiest defensive schedule in the league. Since you asked the difference between the 31 and 24 was -3.7-2.1 or 1.6. Once again ... I am correct. On average, the Broncos played higher DVOA offenses than the Seahawks did, that is just a fact. You seem to be confusing strength of schedule of the team with strength of schedule of the defense. The Seahawks defense had the 2nd easiest schedule of opposing offenses in the league. Therefore .. you once again are flat wrong.

Ah, but the difference as you note is only 1.6. By contrast when we look at it the other way, the difference is a whopping 7.6. 1.6 is not much of a difference to be frank, but 7.6 is quite a bit. That tells me that Denver played a much easier overall schedule and the numbers do back me on this (Seattle having played the 19th hardest slate by DVOA....NINTH hardest on the offensive side, while Denver played the 31st hardest slate by DVOA).

You wanted offensive ranks so here they are Denver faced defenses with a 4.2 which is bad offenses, Seattle faced defenses with a -3.4. Once again I never made any sort of claim that Denver faced better defenses than Seattle or that the defense we faced were even good. My only assertion .. once again is that Seattle D had faced bad offenses, which is completely supported by the SCHED ranks on POF.

Actually it shows that Denver and Seattle faced offenses just about as bad (1.6 difference isn't much) by DVOA. That makes this analysis almost a wash. The fact that Denver has not faced good Defenses is emphatically not a wash and the composite numbers show this.

4. You are wrong on hurries. Seattle did not lead the league with 160 hurries you were 3rd. Detroit with 164 and Min 162 had more according to PFF. As for my stats being misleading, they are to a degree, however in my defense I had to manually go through each game for both teams and look at the game logs for sacks. Those are stats that were not in the game logs for hurries and hits, at least not in the box score so I couldn't break it out by number of hurries and hits against each team as segmented in the top, middle, and bottom 1/3 of the pass protection DVOA offensive lines. You are correct that I should have noted that, my bad.

I stand corrected then, but the difference between 164 and 160 is pretty small I hope you'd agree, and so my overall point should stand. Certainly of the playoff teams, Seattle was the leader in QB hurries and it matters esp for a QB like Peyton Manning.

Look, I am not saying the game will be a blowout. I am not even saying that Seattle will automatically win, but the advanced stats sure point in that direction. Seattle plays a style of defense that Denver is just ill suited to deal with, and Seattle has played against defenses far stouter than Denver's both in run and pass (including just now with San Fran). That's just the truth. So saying "I don't see how Seattle has much a chance" is showing the exact arrogance that you accuse us of. The way I see it, Seattle has a matchup advantage and saying so isn't being arrogant...especially on a Seattle site.

1. When you go the website and you click the drop down, what does it say? It says Team Defense as a heading. I stated multiple times that it was Rush Ranking that I was using.

2. I am not cherry picking data in any way. The original poster defined the parameters of the argument. Rushing yards by Lynch on the road against defenses that Seattle faced. He obfuscated and cherry picked data by only including the defensive ranks of the good teams to prove that Lynch is good on the road so he could win the argument. By not including the ranks of the bad teams that Lynch faced he was attempting to imply that Lynch was better on the road than he was, nothing more. That is absolutely cherry picking data (including specific ranks to win an argument but not others that could undermine his overall goal) I simply corrected that error. At no point have I cherry picked data.

3. Just about the same bad offenses are not the same statistically as facing the same bad offenses. I never claimed Denver faced amazing offenses did I?

4. I will admit to a mistake on this ... in my favor. The way PFW does their hurries is by Defensive Line, LB, and then secondary. I am not going to, at 6:30 am add up every team, but Denver has 122 +41 + 10 for a total of 173. My adding for the Seahawks was correct at 160, so Denver had more hurries than Seattle. The reason Seattle is ranked higher is because they got 3 more sacks and more qb knockdowns. However it should be noted that the Seattle Offensive line gave up 44 sacks which was tied for 10th, Denver gave up the fewest at 20.

 

[sutz]

I think you guys have achieved greatness. Never have so many TLR posts been included in a a single thread. :laugh:

You know, just screaming "YOU SUCK!!" and "BACK ATCHA!!!" would be a lot more efficient.

 

[Polaris]

1. When you go the website and you click the drop down, what does it say? It says Team Defense as a heading. I stated multiple times that it was Rush Ranking that I was using.

That wasn't what you posted. That may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you posted.

2. I am not cherry picking data in any way. The original poster defined the parameters of the argument. Rushing yards by Lynch on the road against defenses that Seattle faced. He obfuscated and cherry picked data by only including the defensive ranks of the good teams to prove that Lynch is good on the road so he could win the argument. By not including the ranks of the bad teams that Lynch faced he was attempting to imply that Lynch was better on the road than he was, nothing more. That is absolutely cherry picking data (including specific ranks to win an argument but not others that could undermine his overall goal) I simply corrected that error. At no point have I cherry picked data.

Your own data proved that Lynch was at least as good on the road as at home. Otherwise you would have broken down the home games as a comparison.

3. Just about the same bad offenses are not the same statistically as facing the same bad offenses. I never claimed Denver faced amazing offenses did I?

Yet you are denigrating Seattle for not doing the same. Double-standard. Frankly what defenses you've faced is far more important especially when it comes to the playoffs and the superbowls. Historically teams with the better defenses win the Lombardi. That isn't always true, and I grant there has been some recent trends against this, but it remains the overall historical trend.

4. I will admit to a mistake on this ... in my favor. The way PFW does their hurries is by Defensive Line, LB, and then secondary. I am not going to, at 6:30 am add up every team, but Denver has 122 +41 + 10 for a total of 173. My adding for the Seahawks was correct at 160, so Denver had more hurries than Seattle. The reason Seattle is ranked higher is because they got 3 more sacks and more qb knockdowns. However it should be noted that the Seattle Offensive line gave up 44 sacks which was tied for 10th, Denver gave up the fewest at 20.

At some point (and this applies to your data regarding performances as a percentage of win chance) you should link to your source data. I have done this. You have not.

You said yourself that your source rated Seattle over Denver when it comes to overall pressure, and you said yourself that you should have included hurry data. Now you are saying that Denver does better than Seattle in this regard.

Irrelevent.

Why? No one is questioning that Denver won't be able to get pressure on Wilson. The thing is, Wilson is extremely adept at dealing with and escaping said pressure. The real question is can Manning be pressured/hurried, because when he can be he's NOT adept at dealing with it. I will give you that Denver's line is top notch at pass-pro, but the question is can Seattle generate pressure, and I think you'll find the data suggests they can.....in combination with a back-end scheme that makes it difficult to nearly impossible to make the quick throw. So what Denver's numbers are aren't of much interest to me because that argument (Den D vs Seattle's O) rotates on different parameters than the primary one which seems to be Denver's O vs Seattle's D.

 

[HawkMeat]

I think it is safe to say some of the fans in this thread exhibit classic signs of denial. Broncos have faced the easiest schedule and their defense does not touch the likes of Hawks, 49ers, Cards, and panthers. All of which are NFC teams and three in the NFC West. Stick Arizona in the AFC and they are in the playoffs.
Broncos offense is the best period. They win games with their offense not defense and there is no argument. This is probably the best match up for both teams and I believe the 49ers are the other match up that would give Denver stiff competition.

 

[WarHawks]

How does a teams record have any statistical impact on the amount of yards given up by Denver by quarter?

How does it not? You played half your games against jv squad teams in the bottom half of the league record-wise. You had the easiest schedule in the nfl which inflated your offensive ranking greatly. If you had been in the NFC west you would probably be 10-6 or maybe 11-5. Of course the caliber of team you play will affect yards given up.

 

[aulaza]

How does a teams record have any statistical impact on the amount of yards given up by Denver by quarter?

How does it not? You played half your games against jv squad teams in the bottom half of the league record-wise. You had the easiest schedule in the nfl which inflated your offensive ranking greatly. If you had been in the NFC west you would probably be 10-6 or maybe 11-5. Of course the caliber of team you play will affect yards given up.

I think you have misunderstood. If you look back, those statistics were about percentage of yardage given up by the Denver DEFENSE, per quarter. Our argument was that many more yards were given up in the fourth quarter than any other, because teams were behind and Denver was in prevent defense. So, in fact, the teams record has no bearing on whether we surrender yards to them in the first or the fourth quarter. Unless that is, at half time in the Jags game the Patriots come out for the next 2 quarters. So it has nothing to do with the record of the teams we played.