Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
New England will be competitive against anyone as long as they have Belichick, Brady and Gronk. Denver could be too the way the defense is playing and the way they're running the ball. They completely changed their identity. Why? So they have a chance to win in Foxborough and against Seattle (tall tasks both, but I think they can make both games interesting if they stick to script and if the O-line can hold up). What gives New England and Seattle the edge over Denver is coaching, not talent. Fox is... yeah. But Denver has as much talent as any team in the NFL.
What in God's name would make you believe N.E couldn't beat Detroit when they already destroyed them earlier in the year?
They also took Green Bay to the wire in Lambeau. They can hang with anyone.
I don't blame you.
It would be an amazing game. But really, if the Seahawks make the playoffs and don't get to beat the Steelers, I'd rather have them play a local HS team. Whatever gets the ring.
New England didnt struggle against Detroit, they blew them out. They went to the wire AT Lambeau, something that no NFC team did this year, and I don't see how Dallas would beat New England. BB would shut down Murray and make Romo beat him, and that most likely wouldn't happen with the way their secondary is playing. You're overlooking the Patriots and Broncos for that matter if you don't think either of them can beat Seattle, GB, or Dallas. New England obviously has the advantage with Belichick, and on a neutral field I think they'd have a great shot at beating Seattle.
Agree with all of this. New England could beat anyone in the NFC. I think there is basically no chance they would get blown out by any of the remaining NFC teams. I could however see any of the other 3 AFC teams getting destroyed by GB or Seattle.
Of course but New England wouldn't even be a heavy underdog against Seattle or GB. I would guess the line would be 4 or less points. It seems that many in here are completely disrespecting the talent on New England.
New England has bit the injury bug at RB, and without anyone to throw to besides Gronk (usually enough against weaker teams) teams would key up and prevent that connection. The defenses are far stronger in the NFC and far better built to handle these classical passing teams coming out of the AFC.I will admit Detroit being viable as equal was a stretch, but on the note that they were beaten, I'll add they were beaten in Foxborough, on a day where special teams and the defense were playing quite poorly.
New England's talent is too top heavy on offense. Give Brady viable weapons at WR and a suitable bell cow and they're holding with even the best defenses. But the offense is overrated. It's done quite well at times, but they've only been fantastic at home and against crappy teams. Their loses at Miami, KC, GB, and Buffalo (which admittedly was a game that didn't matter) show that when playing tough defenses outside of Foxborough its not the same production. The defense is underrated, but it's not awe inspiring. I think New England is about as good as Dallas to be honest, which isn't bad, but Dallas isn't the team GB and Seattle are right now.fred_1_15301 said:
lolwut. Can I have some of what you're smoking?? New England has probably the second best secondary in the league behind Seattle, and one of the best young LB corps going. They've got a solid run game in Blount/Gray/Vereen, and a more well rounded team than GB. These "but the Patriots are too finesse" comments this season are becoming comical. There's a reason why they've held their opponents to only 12 combined points in the second half of the past 6 games.
It bugs me when people assume that recognizability=production. By nearly every metric NE ranks outside the top ten in passing defense, the only reason I can think you hold them in such high regard is because Revis and Browner and maybe McCourty are notable names. Yeah, when their running backs are healthy, it's a pretty damn good stable they have and BB is pretty good at figuring out who to ride week to week, but they aren't healthy and none of them are individually all that good. I wouldn't take Shane Vereen before Lynch, Lacy, Murray, or even Bell if we want to go back to that.
My question would be, which script are we talking here? Peyton Manning gunslinging it or this new run-heavy approach? The problem is that Manning hasn't played like Manning lately, and despite being ostensibly the best defense in the AFC when totally healthy, they haven't preformed like so, mostly because they HAVEN'T been totally healthy this year. Also they've dropped the ball (metaphorically) too often this year, and it usually happens against solid defenses (StL, Cinn, Sea, and NE as far as losses go). But I won't overract to the record, and I admit that Denver can be a scary team when clicking, the problem is we don't know if it can click.
That was a glaring weakness earlier in the season, but they've been pretty stout against the run over the last month or two.
The only team with a better pass defense than New England in the NFC is Seattle. Dallas and GBs are borderline abysmal. It's not by name recognition either. Take a look at what that Pats secondary has done since November and it's quite impressive.
I agree completely with your last sentence. That's what's so frustrating as a Denver fan and why most Denver fans have soured on Fox. Give Denver Belichick and it's possible they're going for a three-peat. The script I was referring to was the new run heavy--slinging the rock 45+ times is a losing proposition. Obviously it will also require better situational play from Peyton, too.
Considering Brady would still have one more ring than Manning, I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion..
Perhaps it's possible to have less Super Bowl rings than someone else but still be better? Last time I checked, football was a team sport.Considering Brady would still have one more ring than Manning, I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion..
That i did. Only saw this thread after games were done. Better late than never...
Yeah but your post was after the games were over and you listed 3 teams who had already been eliminated.
:( At least we saw the Colts v. Peyton.
The fans on this forum -- and the fans not on this forum in New England -- are epically special. I can't speak for Seattle, but yeah, they're generally the worst in the forum, Hooper31's protestations aside. Them and Chicago. Whoa.
Damn, you beat me to that one.wait, the Bears and Raiders are still in it?
Yeah, I think that would be the best option for a high score exciting game.
This is so true. There are quite a few obnoxious fans for every sports team (yes even the Jacksonville Jaguars gasp!). I frequented an NFL chat room in the early 2000s where a Rams fan was the most obnoxious tool. These type of fans typically only come out when the teams are doing well.proninja said:
