SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Mile High Report

The Denver Broncos 6 Game Win Streaks: Comparing 2009 to 2011

These past few years have yielded a lot of great memories that help me get through a lot of the down times. Two of the great moments in recent memory I have are the two six game winning streaks that took place during 2009 and 2011. Between these two streaks I have more memorable moments than all the time since 1998 combined. With the miraculous Brandon Stokley catch to beat the Bengals, to the overtime win against the Patriots, to the nail-biter against Chicago. These 12 games rank among my favorite since the Super Bowls.

With the streaks on my mind I wanted to just do some comparison work between the two to get a look at which had the better offense and defense or faced the tougher opponents. I had a lot of fun doing this research and after finishing I figured I'd share my findings with the people of Mile High Report.

Now before we jump I do want to make a few things clear. This isn't meant as a slight to one streak or another. Now I know some people may take it as I'm trying to put down the 2011 or 2009 streak, that's not my intention. Like comparing any two seasons or segment of games. I'm just laying out a few of the facts about the two streak. I'm not taking anything away from these two streaks, they provided immense entertainment despite being so different. With that being said, let's get to work.

Star-divide

What We Are Looking At:

So while this won't be a game by game breakdown, that would take far more space and time than would be beneficial. So I'll just be looking at the two teams as well as breaking down a few specifics. To start off lets break down these two teams position by position. Now this is based on rewatching the games as well as doing a side by side comparison. I also did a blind poll showing film and stats to people who couldn't name Broncos players. So while hardly perfect, it is fairly solid. So let's do this:

2009 versus 2011:

The first area is obviously the most likely to be hotly debated, the quarterback. Now every is pretty happy to be having Tebow as the QB for this team during that six game win streak and will find it hard to separate their feelings of the 2011 Orton from what he did in 2009. So obviously I couldn't trust myself or other biased Broncos fans so I went straight to the stats and video, took the names and audio away and presented them to a group of educated football fans who aren't familiar with Broncos players. I let them choose all the positions in terms of stats, but I felt that in this position if I excluded film it might leave some things out. Now this group of 47 people almost unanimously voted for one player. I'll let you make the decision:

QB 1 Totals
Y/A Rate Tot Yards TD's TD % TO %
Game 1 5.9 98.1 242.0 2.0 5.9% 0.0%
Game 2 8.6 102.6 112.0 2.0 11.8% 0.0%
Game 3 5.2 61.2 172.0 1.0 3.6% 5.2%
Game 4 7.9 95.4 210.0 1.0 2.5% 0.0%
Game 5 13.5 149.3 215.0 2.0 10.5% 0.0%
Game 6 6.1 70.1 286.0 1.0 2.0% 2.6%
Total 1237.0 9.0
Average 7.9 96.1 206.2 1.5 4.8% 1.1%
QB 2 Totals
Y/A Rate Tot Yards TD's TD % TO %
Game 1 8.7 100.7 246.0 1.0 3.6% 0.0%
Game 2 7.1 83.5 263.0 1.0 2.7% 0.0%
Game 3 6.8 92.1 156.0 1.0 4.3% 0.0%
Game 4 8.4 117.5 243.0 2.0 6.9% 0.0%
Game 5 6.9 96.7 330.0 2.0 4.2% 2.1%
Game 6 7.9 115.4 240.0 2.0 6.9% 0.0%
Total 1478.0 9.0
Average 7.6 101.0 246.3 1.5 4.6% 0.5%

The two QB's are similar, QB 1 has a slightly better yards per attempt and touchdown percentage while QB 2 takes rating, total yards per game and turn over percentage. Just looking at these it's leaning slightly towards QB 2, but we are leaving out one key figure, completion percentage. If we include that we are able to see the balance here. QB 1's completion percentage is... 48% while QB 2 has a completion percentage of 63.3%. So when you factor that in QB 2 is the clear winner. Now just to make it clear, I factored in running yards and touchdowns as well at fumbles so we are including both QB's strengths. It is clear that QB 2 was the better of the two. The quarterbacks, as the completion percentage probably showed, QB 1 is Tim Tebow and QB 2 is Kyle Orton.

Now a huge disclaimer, both QB's played well during this six game win streak, I'm not saying cut Tebow or that Orton is better now or that Tebow will fail forever, I'm merely pointing out Orton played fantastic football during the six game win streak in 2009. Both QB's played outstanding and both played a big role in why the teams won, but for the sake of the this study, when comparing these two streaks, 2009 takes the QB win and the blind film study agrees as well with 43 of the 47 saying that QB 2 was the better of the two.

Let's take a look at the teams as a whole:

Position 2009 2011 Edge
QB Orton Tebow 2009
HB Moreno McGahee 2011
FB Larsen Larsen 2011
TE Scheffler Fells 2009
WR1 Marshall Decker 2009
WR2 Gaffney Thomas 2011
RT Harris Franklin 2009
RG Kuper Kuper 2009
C Wiegmann Walton 2009
LG Hochstein Beadles 2009
LT Clady Clady 2009
FS Dawkins Dawkins 2009
SS Hill Moore 2009
CB1 Bailey Bailey Tie
CB2 Goodman Goodman Tie
ROLB Dumervil Miller Tie
RILB Williams Mays 2009
LILB Davis - -
LOLB Haggan Williams 2011
RDE Peterson Dumervil 2011
DT/NT Fields Bunkley 2011
DT - Thomas -
LDE McBean Ayers 2011
K Prater Prater Tie
P Berger Colquitt 2011
R Royal Cosby 2009

Notes

So looking at this it's clear that the 2009 team was a better team. They had the better player at 12 positions compared to 8 from the 2011 team, 4 were a tie. One area the 2011 team was better at was in the front seven, taking 4 of 6 with 2009 only taking 1. Dawkins, Champ and Goodman are still a solid set of DB's but they were just better in 2009. Renaldo Hill, while never outstanding never played as badly as Moore and Carter did this season. One offense the biggest areas of improvement was at running back, where Moreno was a rookie who had a good season, McGahee just had a better season. Also Larsen was just learning how to play fullback in 2009 and has greatly improved since then. At wide receiver Marshall was easily better than Decker and while Gaffney had a very solid 2009 season, I'm giving the #2 wide receiver spot to DT because how well he did in his limited time, but his injuries could have easily lent itself to making that a tie. While the offensive line improved as the season went on, the 2009 squad was just better overall. As for special teams, 2009 Prater was more accurate but 2011 Prater made better kicks when he needed to so that's a tie. Colquitt was a borderline Pro Bowler and while Berger had a solid season, Colquitt had a better one. Royal's 2009 returning season was impressive and while he saw time returning in 2011, Quan Cosby got almost all the returns over the course of the season, and did solid, though not overly impressive.

But just looking at this position by position isn't showing the whole picture, we have to look at things like points per game, opponent strengths and such. So let's start to break this down. In this next section I'll look at a variety of metrics:

- Opponents record and whether the team made the playoffs
- Opponents SRS, a metric created by Pro Football Reference that takes into account a teams margin of victory, wins, opponents record to create a useful way to measure a teams success. Now there may be those who don't trust it, the team with the higher SRS wins 87% of games so it's a reliable way to measure a teams strengths.
- Each teams score and the margin of victory.
- Lastly there is the total, passing and rushing yards as well as turnovers for both the offense and defense.

Now that we've explained the table let's take a look:

2009
Points Offense Defense
Week Opp Record SRS Tm Opp Margin TotYd PassY RushY TO TotYd PassY RushY TO
1 W Cincinnati Bengals (PO) 10-6 .7 12 7 5 302 227 75 307 221 86 2
2 W Cleveland Browns 5-11 -8.4 27 6 21 449 263 186 1.0 200 146 54 3
3 W Oakland Raiders 5-11 -10.3 23 3 20 372 157 215 1.0 137 42 95 3
4 W Dallas Cowboys (PO) 11-5 7.1 17 10 7 337 221 116 1.0 315 241 74 2
5 W OT New England Patriots (PO) 10-6 11.2 20 17 3 424 321 103 2.0 305 209 96 1
6 W San Diego Chargers (PO) 13-3 6.6 34 23 11 328 227 101 311 238 73 1
Average 0.17 9-7 1.15 22 11 11 369 236 133 0.8 263 183 80 2
2011
Points Offense Defense
Week Opp Record SRS Tm Opp Margin TotYd PassY RushY TO TotYd PassY RushY TO
9 W Oakland Raiders 8-8 -4.1 38 24 14 412 113 299 416 316 100 3
10 W Kansas City Chiefs 7-9 -8.9 17 10 7 313 69 244 258 124 134
11 W New York Jets 8-8 5.2 17 13 4 229 104 125 1.0 318 235 83 2
12 W OT San Diego Chargers 8-8 1.1 16 13 3 349 141 208 344 159 185
13 W Minnesota Vikings 3-13 -5.5 35 32 3 336 186 150 2.0 489 360 129 3
14 W OT Chicago Bears 8-8 1.4 13 10 3 345 221 124 2.0 245 86 159 1
Average 0.33 7-9 -1.61 23 17 6 331 139 192 0.8 345 213 132 1.5

Notes

We can see that the 2009 team beat better teams, and while you can't choose who you play, the teams that were beaten in 2009 were a more impressive group. The 2009 group had four playoff teams, a higher SRS and a larger margin of victory. While the 2011 team scored about 1 more point per game the defense was far better. Overall the offenses were at a similar level, one more run heavy while the other was more pass heavy. Both had amazing ball security. The difference was the defense, with 2009 being better every area. Overall out of the 13 categories we measured statistically the 2009 team was better in 10.

Last Thoughts:

Now I know some may take this the wrong way, but in my own opinion, as well as those that took place in my study, the 2009 six game win streak was more impressive and that team was a better team. Remember that the 2009 team could have made the playoffs as well, but since the 2009 AFC field was tougher and the Chargers easily won the division, it made it impossible to make it.

Now I hope that you who read this take this the way I intended, a comparison of the two streaks, but also a celebration of both streaks and teams. During both streaks the two QB's played the best football they played that season. Both didn't make mistakes, moved the ball and lead their teams. Both teams fielded great defenses and great special teams. These are two great teams, both streaks have many great memories and I'm grateful to have been able to witness both, I mean two six game win streak in three years isn't something to ignore for a team that has struggle as much as we have.

7 recs  |  50 comments

Comments

Nice analysis

One point of contention – I don’t think Kuper was better in 2009 than in 2011. That is either a tie or a slight edge to 2011. In 2009 Kuper was playing with a season pro in Wiegman on his left and a second year player in Harris on his right so he had more experience around him. In 2011 he had a second year pro on his left and a rookie on his right. Add to that the fact that the rookie had only 1+ seasons of experience playing offensive tackle in college and I contend that he did a much better job in 2011 than 2009.

I'm mostly basing it on what blind study group

As well as studies done at Pro Football Focus and Advanced NFL Stats, but like I said, there is obviously those who will contend that one player or another is better. I personally think that Kuper was better in 2009, and the data backs me up, but I can completely understand why someone could see the 2011 Kuper as at a similar level. Thanks for your thoughts.

either way we went 8-8

each year and this year, that’s not good enough, expectations have been raised, let’s play well like we all know we’re capable of, GO BRONCOS!!!

Thanks Brad
no trouble

I am the voice of reason often, which isn’t too disturbing, I hope…

I disagree with the subjective way you decided which position was better.

I’d say 2011 would be the year we had a better QB. ;) I also think the team record we set in rushing yards is indicative of which offensive line was superior.

In any case, one team surged to get into playoff position…while the other wilted away with a 2-8 finish. The worst thing that ever happened to Orton was having his finger heal.

2011, in my opinion, was far superior to 2009. Why? Because I only enjoyed 8 out of 16 games in 2009….in 2011, I enjoyed 9 of 17. :P

Either way, I am glad Orton is gone and the distraction he became due to the sheer onslaught of Tebowmania. He is better off and we’re all better off. I have not been this excited for an offseason since 2006!!!!

BRONCOS!

interesting point

how many quarterbacks have their performance worsen once they get healthy?

Haha I did my best to eliminate subjectivity from this study

Hence the blind film study and using as many stats in conjunction with the actual games as possible, I can’t think of any way Tebow was the better of the two just in terms of these win streaks, but for many fans it’s hard to separate the QB from other things he did, especially you and Orton ;)

As for you thinking we surged into the playoffs, while 2-8 is a terrible way to finish a season, going 0-3 isn’t great either. Had we made the playoffs in 2009, no one would mention the bad finish. Haha I do agree about enjoying an extra game in 2011 though.

Thanks for your thoughts Tim.

an extra two games...
Yea but I didn't enjoy one of them
just for the record

Kern was our punter for the 6-0 start in 2009, he was then picked up by the titans when we picked up the God awful Berger.

Thanks for pointing that out

But I included Berger since he started most of the games in 2009, and while Kern was the better of those two, Prater is better than both.

You mean Colquitt?

Prater probably is a better punter than those two though!

Haha I'm working on a FA article

Got Prater on the mind.

That could do it

Gotta get Prater paid!

only point i'd add

(unless i missed it) is when the streaks took place during the season. 2009 was the very first six games, whereas 2011 had us down 1-4 and going uphill. the broncos actually had to work out of a hole to get up to a playoff spot (albeit crapping out the last three games again). like a baseball team winning their first fifteen games of the season—great stuff, but a streak like that is a bigger deal the later in the season it gets.

in any case, good stuff, topher. and overall i’d say, yeah, that 2009 team was slightly better. i hope fans and the organization are realistic with this last season. the broncos were an average to below average team that made good. this season started as a three year rebuild and it should still go down as year one of that goal, but with the pat on the back that the team is going the right way.

well done. always nice to see something meaty that’s not the usual tebow stuff.

why is it a bigger deal down the stretch?

the fan perception is that it is, because that is when the playoff hype gets roaring… but functionally I see zero difference. You swap the location of the games around in the schedule, and you have no difference in who makes the playoffs, etc.

Sometimes, like ’09, it can indicate lack of depth (as injuries pile up), but in 2011 we were much healthier mid-season than we were early in the year.

the exception to this...

… is the ever unqauntifiable “momentum”, but I think that can largely be eliminated by good coaching.

If you have a hypermanic coach like McD, big streaks (win or lose) can lead to the team getting too high or too low and things spiralling…. this is largely what happened to us in 2010, where the team wasn’t functionally any more or less talented than ‘09/’11 (with the big exception of passrush minus Doom), but after having a run of tough, close losses against good teams (NYJ, Balt, etc.) and some sideshow spygate2 action, the whole team went into the the tank along with McD.

While I think McD is in some respects a better inovator and maybe even talent evaluator, than Fox… Fox has that solid as a rock demeanor that will be a good foundation for a solid team, even if he may never build a GREAT team. But he’s 100% what Denver needed after McD’s implosion.

All good coaches talk about playing their best football in December.

It’s not just fan created hype that puts an emphasis performing down the stretch. Flex scheduling starts in week 15 for a reason. It’s just like a student coming towards the end of a semester; if they know they are close to earning that A, it’s human nature to buckle down and get it. At the same time, if a team is aware that they have a legitimate shot to go compete for a championship, they tend to focus and play harder.

You can look to both the 2010 and 2011 World Champions as to why streaks down the stretch carry more weight. Both Green Bay and New York won Championships because they got hot and went on a streak late in the season. Week 17 is a tangible barrier that good teams will fight just a little harder to get past. You can’t throw out the importance of the playoffs in this equation. The stark reality of missing the playoffs can light a fire under a team as it did the Giants this season and the Pack last season.

but coaches also always talk about "getting out of the blocks strong"

NFL seasons are too short to writeoff any stretch of games in some mythical attempt to come on strong late. Teams that undervalue early and mid-season are likely to miss the playoffs (see 2011 Eagles).

Consistency, and continual improvement (which is natural given relatively short seasons and young players/turnover) is the key… teams always talk about “one game at a time”… that means focus EVERY WEEK, not just late season.

Also, “flex games” are about fan interest and TV revenue… that evidence is more in my favor than yours.

I'm not discounting any part of the season

But you would have to be blind not to notice the intensity in games turns up a notch down the stretch. It goes up yet another notch in the Playoffs. Here’s another factor to look at that you can probably grasp: most teams execute their game plans better later in the season than they do earlier in the season due to repitition. There is definitely a difference between the first quarter of the season and the last quarter. Just because something is difficult to measure doesn’t mean that it is not a factor. Psychology and momentum, though hard to quantify, play a role in winning and losing in every game. It’s tough to beat a team that starts to believe they can’t be beat. At the same time, it’s tough to win when it seems like you can’t buy a victory. I understand a W is a W and a L is a L, but what goes into achieving those results on a weekly basis is never a constant. It’s not a stretch to say the competition in the NFL gets stiffer the later into the season you get.

Look at the Packers.....

Packers streak at the end of last season got them a Lombardi. Where as Packers streak this season, got them a one and done in the playoffs. Giants streak at the end of the season led to a SB win.

teams lose games against playoff teams ALL THE TIME

highlighting one loss, against a very good team (when healthy) is evidence of nothing.

For all we know, GB was by far and away the best team in the NFL… Just like NE was in ‘07 (I personally don’t think they were that good at all). But the fact that they lost a playoff game against a good team should hardly be surprising, even if you think they were the better overall team. in happens all the time.

To put it another way… lets say you think talent wise GB had a 70% chance of winning in the playoffs (and absurdly high % for an NFL game)… that still means 30% of the time they are going to lose. That is the definition of unsurprising.

The point I see

is close to yours. While we were 1-4 in 2011 we were also starting with a new QB and very shortly a new offense.
To my eyes, both streaks were the beginnings of new offensive sets. 09 McD’s new regime and 11 being Fox’s real coming out party with Tebow and the Tebone offense ( I just made that up).

mmmm…. t-bones…

Timing is everything

2011, the Broncos went on a run and the rest of the conference was inconsistent at best. The timing of these wins was everything when it comes to the team making the playoffs

Oops, I meant to say division!
Thanks for your thoughts Ox

It is something of note that the Broncos started 1-4 in 2011, and bouncing back is an impressive feat, but a lot of it might have to with the defensive scheme coming together after no off-season as well as Tebow taking over at QB. I do agree that we have reason to be happy with 2011, but this team isn’t perfect yet, and people expecting us to go 12-4 or 14-2 might be in a rough spot.

yeah, we’ll all reserve our predictions for a few months, but right now it might not be a horrible thing to look at 8-8 or 9-7 with the wins being cleaner (less OTs) and the team looking more consistent in the losses (i.e. losing to a team like the patriots wouldn’t mean we don’t recognize our team at all from the week before).

If I was forced to make a prediction

I’d go with 8-8 or 9-7, since we have a much tough schedule, but we still have FA and the draft, so who knows how things will play out.

we have Tebow with a full offseason as well

no more stupid lockout, I think the 2009 streak represented Kyle Orton’s ceiling. Obviously, he has not been that good since, I think Tebow has only scratched the surface

i agree about the tebow ceiling. i hope we’re right.

but that said, i still think this team went talent-starved for so long (especially on defense) that it’ll take another year or two to truly rebuild.

I can agree with you on 8-8 or 9-7 again

but I also think looking at the rest of the division that record might take the west again. The opponent that worries me is KC. Theyre very young and talented on D

It will be interesting

Especially if San Diego can restablize themselves, and while we like to make fun of them, they have the most talented team in the division and will be a tough opponent. Oakland looks like an 8-8 team again, but their coaching situation is just crazy. KC will likely improve with the return of all their talented, but injured, players. While 9-7 may win the division, we have to win divisional games, and that looks tough again.

Thanks

Looking forward, I think this goes to show how silly looking at even half-season samples can be for predicting future performance… a strong streak like these can indicate a team on the rise…. or simply be an aberation that quickly corrects itself.

I think another undervalued point in both these streaks was the importance of team health. In ’09 the team started out healthy, but quickly faded when some key players got hurt down the stretch, In ’11, the team started out a bit banged up losing a bunch of games, got healthy mid-season (and went on a tear), and then faded again down the stretch when some key players got banged up.

Similar evidence can be seen in the Super Bowl this year… the Pats DEF was banged up all season, but got healthy for the playoffs… the NYG are an even better example, where they were REALLY banged up all season and almost missed the playoffs, but then got healthy for the playoffs. Looking at the players on a healthy 2011 NYG squad on both sides of the ball, I don’t think it is a big stretch to say they are one of the most talented teams the NFL (unlike the first SB where NE was clearly the better team, and would’ve likely won a “3 out of 5” series if the NFL played that way…).

What does this mean for Denver in 2012? Health and Depth will be critical… for all McD’s faults, I think he did a decent job of bringing in more young talent, which has set EFX up for success if they can continue to add top-flight talent and solid depth in our continued areas of weakness (aging DBs, oline depth, DT, RB and MLB). But injury luck, and EFX’s ability to continue to find useful players that can step up when the starter goes down, will be critical.

it's like Foxy says next man up!
You make some great points

Both about health and not using these samples to judge a whole season. Thanks for your thoughts.

Both streaks

Were built on emotion and new team directions. Both were small samples in long seasons. Both ended with multiple losses. Can you say unsustainable?

And many thanks for admitting that Orton was the better QB, that is considered to be heresy by some of our fans. Just because the team went on a streak doesn’t mean we had an elite QB in either season.

it's like a beauty pageant

where the queen got her teeth knocked out, neither one is exceptional or desirable, just keep winning next season Tebow

Small samples indeed.

6 games is a far cry from where we want to be. It is nice to know what we are capable of though when we play with inspiration.

I do believe when Tebow's time is over in Denver

Whenever that is, he’ll have had a better career in Denver, but when looking at just these two streaks, Orton was the better QB, though Tebow played well also. I agree emotion played a huge role in these streaks, both with the emotion Tebow brought as well as the intense competitiveness McD brought. Thanks for your thoughts.

great, Orton was the better QB

during that streak, if he were the better option, he’d still be here!

Who us saying Orton's the better option now?

No one, I said as much in the article, we need to be less sensitive about Tebow sometimes.

I hope no one

said that because that would be retarded

It would just be opinion

But just like you, people are allowed to have opinions, especially since some may view some of your opinions as “retarded.”

No, it is a definitive "fact"

that Orton is not the best option now because he cost himself the job early in 2011, Tebow did nothing to diminish anyone’s faith in him, I honestly think Orton has hit the ceiling but aw screw it this argument is going nowhere

Simply calling something a "fact"

doesn’t make it so.

I happen to share your opinion, and seemingly so do EFX, but that STILL doesn’t make it “fact”.

What is/are “fact(s)”?
Orton had below NFL-average performance and the team lost games early season. EFX decided that he was no longer the favored option as starter for the team, and decided to play TT instead. Denver won games and made the playoffs, even though TT’s passing results were highly erratic/inconsistent and often below NFL-average. TT led some 4thQ comebacks, and also he appeared to have a demonstrable effect on our running game with his superior rushing skills, by letting us effectively run read-option plays.

Everything in the previous paragraph is “fact”. All of those statements can very clearly be demonstrated in non-subjective ways. But value judgements on who is the “best” overall option, or arguments based on counter-factual suppositions (e.g. the commonly heard around here: “Orton would have lost the games TT won”) are not “facts”… those are opinions. A reasonable person could look at the facts above, and still come to the conclusion that the team would be better off with Orton because he is a better passer than TT… that is a value judgement based on their perceived value of passing skills… it is opinon, not fact. Just like opinions about TT being better are not “facts”.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Mile High Report to post a comment.