Denver defense - Overhyped

[aulaza]

I'm sick and tired of the issue of 'strength of schedule'. It is a subject that is discussed ad nauseam about most teams each year. Every year, there are very good teams that people claim 'only have that record because they have an easy schedule'. We see it with the Pats virtually every year, in this thread it just happens to be the Broncos. Guess what? If you win 13 games, you're good.

 

[plyka]

Do I wait for you to catch up, or do I give you the actual link to this entire season? Tough call.

I think I'll let you twist in your ignorance a bit more.

There's no need to be rude because you lack an argument.

Going by scoring is ignorant because it doesn't take "garbage time" into account. Most football fans understand "garbage time" in that most teams who score 37 PPG on average don't feel the need to break their necks in preventing some 4th quarter "garbage time" scoring.

For example, the lowly Raiders scored 14 points in the 4th quarter against Denver in week 17 AFTER Denver had scored 31 points. "Garbage time."

The average point differential between the broncos an the seahawks has. Been even this year. They have beaten teams by an average of 1.3 points more than the seahawks. This with the easiest schedule in the nfl. There is no added garbage time for Denver vs Seattle.

You're obviously going off the rails in an attempt to find something in the stats to strengthen your weak point of view. When you're not intentionally attempting to find rigged stats like your rushing argument, by only looking at two games in the post season versus the entire year. When you're not using rigged stats you're making them up out of whole cloth, as you did with your argument that Denver has had more garbage time opportunities against them by other teams.

I think you need to get a life. This is just a game. Your team lost. It's over. There is no point for you, in a wildly desperate move, to be on a hawks message board making up stats to build Denver up. Even if Denver wins, your team still lost. Nothing will change that. What will make you feel better is getting a life. I suggest you walk out to the nearest public place and force yourself to walk up to a pretty girl and spark a conversation. Even if you fail it will be a great experience and you won't continue to think about your 49ers and their embarrassing loss.

 

[davidonmi]

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.

This is my take om Lynch, just ignore everything that he did over the reg season for 2 reasons.
1. Our offensive line was riddled with injuries (not one starter did not get hurt at one point) so not only were guys missing time but it was nearly impossible for them to find a rhythm when guys are going in and out week to week.
The Oline has finally had a few weeks of being together.
2. Lynch is getting up there in terms of years, I'm not sure he was going 100%, and I'm especially convinced of that towards the end of the season.
So again, I'm ignoring his reg season #'s

 

[sutz]

I'm pretty sure they were protecting Lynch this year, saving his reps for the playoffs. Compared to prior seasons, he's pretty fresh coming into the playoffs, thus his going off against the Saints and Niners. Now he's warmed up.

The Ponies better watch out. They're about to experience Beast Mode.

 

[DeathbyTalons]

I'm sick and tired of the issue of 'strength of schedule'. It is a subject that is discussed ad nauseam about most teams each year. Every year, there are very good teams that people claim 'only have that record because they have an easy schedule'. We see it with the Pats virtually every year, in this thread it just happens to be the Broncos. Guess what? If you win 13 games, you're good.

Than take some meds and go to bed. Your team got to where it is on backs of substandard teams with "mediocre" defenses. Good for fantasy football teams, but it will be a bruising wakeup call when you face us. Understand this, this team is well aware that they need to bring a title back to Seattle and if they have to bury your boy number 18, sack or not, they will.

 

[aulaza]

I'm sick and tired of the issue of 'strength of schedule'. It is a subject that is discussed ad nauseam about most teams each year. Every year, there are very good teams that people claim 'only have that record because they have an easy schedule'. We see it with the Pats virtually every year, in this thread it just happens to be the Broncos. Guess what? If you win 13 games, you're good.

Than take some meds and go to bed. Your team got to where it is on backs of substandard teams with "mediocre" defenses. Good for fantasy football teams, but it will be a bruising wakeup call when you face us. Understand this, this team is well aware that they need to bring a title back to Seattle and if they have to bury your boy number 18, sack or not, they will.

Its ironic that us Broncos fans were asked to be respectful when coming onto this board, when most hawks fans have been rude and disrespectful. I've always liked Seattle, but the views of fans on here is quite worrisome. I don't want to tarnish all with the same brush here, but the majority of you guys have been arrogant about your team - it reminds me of (annoying) Pats fans and its not cool guys. Lets show some class and be respectful here.

As for the rest of it, lets talk about this match up, comparing who each other has played is a useless exercise. Its not Denver's fault if a) they put up massive yardage on teams and kill their defensive stats or b) they play teams and make them look worse than they are or c) they play teams that are just plain poor, and beat them easily. The mark of a good team is that it trounces the rubbish teams - Denver did that. Denver is a good team, there is no getting around that. Let's talk about this match up, not the regular season - its irrelevant now. Its a shame because this is a great match-up between two very good teams. I believe Seattle is a bad match-up for Denver and I slightly favour them in the game, but it will never be the case that this was not a good Broncos football team, regardless of the result in the SB, which may not be as one-sided as you guys all seem to think.

 

[DeathbyTalons]

I'm sick and tired of the issue of 'strength of schedule'. It is a subject that is discussed ad nauseam about most teams each year. Every year, there are very good teams that people claim 'only have that record because they have an easy schedule'. We see it with the Pats virtually every year, in this thread it just happens to be the Broncos. Guess what? If you win 13 games, you're good.

Than take some meds and go to bed. Your team got to where it is on backs of substandard teams with "mediocre" defenses. Good for fantasy football teams, but it will be a bruising wakeup call when you face us. Understand this, this team is well aware that they need to bring a title back to Seattle and if they have to bury your boy number 18, sack or not, they will.

Its ironic that us Broncos fans were asked to be respectful when coming onto this board, when most hawks fans have been rude and disrespectful. I've always liked Seattle, but the views of fans on here is quite worrisome. I don't want to tarnish all with the same brush here, but the majority of you guys have been arrogant about your team - it reminds me of (annoying) Pats fans and its not cool guys. Lets show some class and be respectful here.

As for the rest of it, lets talk about this match up, comparing who each other has played is a useless exercise. Its not Denver's fault if a) they put up massive yardage on teams and kill their defensive stats or b) they play teams and make them look worse than they are or c) they play teams that are just plain poor, and beat them easily. The mark of a good team is that it trounces the rubbish teams - Denver did that. Denver is a good team, there is no getting around that. Let's talk about this match up, not the regular season - its irrelevant now. Its a shame because this is a great match-up between two very good teams. I believe Seattle is a bad match-up for Denver and I slightly favour them in the game, but it will never be the case that this was not a good Broncos football team, regardless of the result in the SB, which may not be as one-sided as you guys all seem to think.

First off stop playing the 'Broncos fans were largely respectful and hawks fans are classless 'card. There is a virtual rogues gallery of ass clown Broncos fans who've infiltrated this site shortly after waking up from their slumber under a bridge. Secondly, it's not arrogance but supreme confidence that this team will beat the Broncos.
Additionally, If being respectful is following the media's narrative that 'the greatness of Manning will overwhelm these poor seahawks' and this game is simply a legacy building exercise designed to be a defacto coranation for 'good old' Peyton, then yes I will not be reasonable nor respectful. I simply pointed out some pertinent facts regarding the Broncos record and made an assessment about the true value of that record. Sorry if you have a problem with my assessment. As far as the last part, that stands .....this team will do WHATEVER is necessary to bring the title to Seattle...believe that.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I've always thought the truth was respectful and thinking the Seahawks win 30-20 or 34-24 isn't what I would deem as arrogant but simple truth. I have seen nearly every Denver game this year and what I saw is a team that should view Seattle as a nightmare matchup in nearly every possible way.

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

 

[DeathbyTalons]

I've always thought the truth was respectful and thinking the Seahawks win 30-20 or 34-24 isn't what I would deem as arrogant but simple truth. I have seen nearly every Denver game this year and what I saw is a team that should view Seattle as a nightmare matchup in nearly every possible way.

And one.....

 

[BlueTalon]

How you going to score? Lynch? Denver will shut him down to 10 yards all game.

You want to put any real money on that? If you don't think Lynch will go for more than 10 yards, then he certainly won't go for 50, right?

$50 says Lynch will run the ball for over 50 yards. You lose, you contribute $50 to this board. You win, I send $50 to your home board or your favorite charity.

 

[BlueTalon]

I said beastmode cannot be stop at HOME but in the road he sucks. The superbowl is not hometeam for you guys. If anything its hometown for Denver.

The last time the Seahawks played there, they shut out the actual home team. As a neutral field, it feels pretty homey to us.

 

[Papa-pwn]

I've always thought the truth was respectful and thinking the Seahawks win 30-20 or 34-24 isn't what I would deem as arrogant but simple truth. I have seen nearly every Denver game this year and what I saw is a team that should view Seattle as a nightmare matchup in nearly every possible way.

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

Houston and Hali played the full game in Denver. They were both injured against the Chargers the following week. They combined for 0 sacks in the game at Denver, so I'd hardly call that "sacking Peyton with regularity".

 

[CallMeADawg]

Denver's good defensive players are mostly on the IR. Quoting a bunch of season based data for them is flawed, as it contains contributions from players that are no longer playing, do not have comparable players contributing at or close to their level, and will not be playing in the Super Bowl. This thread was a good read, but the bottom line is, and I am quoting a text I received from a close friend and Bronco fanatic:

"Our CB corp is either slow or young and inexperienced. Easy to exploit most times. It's why we give up too many big plays. D took a major pounding this year dude."

That does not bode well for Denver heading into this game. Seattle was ranked pretty high in explosive plays this year and I fully expect to see more of that in the game on 2/2. Playing San Francisco right before heading into the Super Bowl is something I think will pay DIVIDENDS for Seattle, as Denver will not come with a front 7 anywhere close (hell not even within 10 parsecs) to the 49ers front 7. I highly doubt anyone from Bronco nation would argue that you have corners or safeties that will give us fits either.

30-17 Seattle. Book it.

 

[MileHighFish]

... and Denver has the best offense in the NFL and I fully expect to see more of it come Sunday. Sounds like Seattle's defense is going to stop the Bronco's offense and the Seahawk offense is going to lay the wood to the Bronco defense.... Meh.

It's the never ending argument. Can't wait until it's actually determined on the field vs on a message board.

 

[MileHighFish]

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

KC had a total of 0 sacks combined this season versus Denver...

 

[CallMeADawg]

... and Denver has the best offense in the NFL and I fully expect to see more of it come Sunday.

It's the never ending argument. Can't wait until it's actually determined on the field vs on a message board.

Yes, they most certainly do. There are a few items I am generally interesting in hearing from Denver fans about. (Note: If someone trolls, I will ignore your post entirely so don't bother trying).

1. Manning is like an Offensive Coordinator when he is on the field, and that is what I like most about him. Most defenses in the league are heavy on scheme whereas Seattle is not. While they will disguise coverages, the majority of what we are doing is not being hidden from Manning, and is not something he will need to fish around and discover. Seattle lines up and dares you to beat them. Likewise, Seattle runs non-standard versions of their coverage that Jon Gruden laughingly calls the "Triangle." Do folks see this as indifferent, a problem, or a bonus for Manning?

2. Seattle is a very physical football team, both on defense and on offense. Marshawn Lynch is unique in the sense that his objective is not to run around people (per se) it is to run OVER them, beat them up, wear them down physically, and reap the benefits of that both in the present and future portions of the game. He is also INCREDIBLY difficult to tackle, so teams prone to tackling problems (haha 2010 Saints ) are teams he feasts on. Likewise Seattle's defense will physically punish you (legally) on the plays you make and the plays you don't make. How will this Denver squad deal with this kind of game from Seattle, in the cold, in February, for 4 quarters? Disclaimer: I am asking about now, not earlier in the season; do not waste my time with anecdotes about how you played this team, this one time, in band camp earlier in the season. It frankly does NOT matter at all.

3. I have heard a lot about Denver's offense and their Defense, but I have heard very little about their Special Teams, other than their placekicker. How are they at making plays on kickoff and punt returns (both defending them, and with the ball themselves) right now? Seattle has done very well on both sides of the ball in terms of special teams, as has Percy Harvin returning and owning kickoff return duties this game. Tate has been a STUD on punt returns (he is kind of a poor man's Harvin in a way; albeit without the afterburners) and Seattle almost broke the NFL record for least yards surrendered on punt returns. Note: I think our placekickers are a wash. Both are really talented dudes. No need to talk about them.

That is it for now. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

KC had a total of 0 sacks combined this season versus Denver...

They pressured him, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And more important is that you and I know beyond a doubt that game swung because of those freak injuries just like when Talib got cheap shotted.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

KC had a total of 0 sacks combined this season versus Denver...

Sacks are a very fun stat to track, but sacks are not the ultimate metric for evaluating a defensive line's capabilities. MileHighFish is correct though, based on the box scores I read there were a total of 3 hits, and the places I looked did not track hurries on Manning, so I dunno about that part.

 

[Papa-pwn]

I'm pretty sure they were protecting Lynch this year, saving his reps for the playoffs. Compared to prior seasons, he's pretty fresh coming into the playoffs, thus his going off against the Saints and Niners. Now he's warmed up.

The Ponies better watch out. They're about to experience Beast Mode.

I don't think so. Lynch's 337 touches this year were the second most of his career. Second only to the 338 of last year.

 

[Papa-pwn]

Before Kansas City lost Houston and Hali on nearly consequesitve plays they both had that game and were sacking Peyton with regularity in Denver. In Kansas City they still put up a good fight despite still being a shell of themselves because of injury.

KC had a total of 0 sacks combined this season versus Denver...

They pressured him, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And more important is that you and I know beyond a doubt that game swung because of those freak injuries just like when Talib got cheap shotted.

They weren't injured in the Denver game. They were injured the week after, against the Chargers. So I don't know how you "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that those nonexistent injuries swung the game, considering both players in question played the entire game, and ended the game completely healthy.

But no, they didn't really pressure Manning.

I will repeat it a third time for good measure, Hali and Houston were injured against the chargers, a week after they played Denver.